Would you convert if EO and RCC were in full communion?

[Trebor135]

False. Several Councils and regional synods have been held since that point, and although they are not called ecumenical, the inclusion of their anathematisms into the Synodikon of Orthodoxy makes their doctrinal authority undisputable.

Which councils are you referring to?

 

[Trebor135]

Prove it; I guarantee your definition of papal infallibility is an invention and can never be proven from scripture, sacred Tradition nor the early Church Fathers. Could you give your definition of Papal infallibility? I have yet to come across an Orthodox who correctly defines papal infallibility.

Papal infallibility, in the Catholic understanding, runs as follows: the bishop of Rome, endowed with the charisms of his office as the successor of St. Peter and head of the visible Church, is protected by the Holy Spirit from teaching error on faith and morals when he solemnly defines for all the faithful a matter of doctrine in an official and public manner.

That definition was written off the top of my head, without looking at the Catholic catechism.

Now, where do we see papal infallibility discussed or exercised during the first millennium?

Peace be with you

And with your spirit.

 

[Trebor135]

As far as infallibility goes for the Popes, this expression is never used because his authority was never brought into question.

But such a charism was never exercised. If it were really believed in during, say, the Arian crisis, why not?

 

[Cavaradossi]

Which councils are you referring to?

A whole string of councils from around the 11th Century up until the 16th Century had insertions made into the Synodikon of Orthodoxy. Included are the condemnations of propositions by a whole slew of people made from the 11th to the 13th century, including John Italus, Nilos, Eustratios and Leo of Chalcedon, Basilaki and Soterichos, Constantine the Bulgarian, and John Irenicus. Also included are condemnations of propositions made by Barlaam and Akindynos (condemnations promulgated by the Hesychast Synods during the 14th century). The final grouping of condemnations, added in 1583, condemn purgatory, the idea that the Pope is the head of the Church, the idea that the pope may issue indulgences and forgive all sins in exchange for money, the idea that one ought only communicate under one species, the use of unleavened bread in the Eucharist, and the Gregorian Calendar. The idea (lamentably popular amongst Roman Catholic apologists), that Orthodoxy somehow after the schism thought of itself as being incapable of teaching or expounding authoritatively upon the received tradition because of some perceived defect by virtue of no longer having a bishop in Rome is simply falsehood.

 

[aemcpa]

False. Several Councils and regional synods have been held since that point, and although they are not called ecumenical, the inclusion of their anathematisms into the Synodikon of Orthodoxy makes their doctrinal authority undisputable.

So all you need to do is prove that the Synodikon is a sine qua non of Orthodoxy and that all those who belong with the Orthodox Church profess it in exactly the same form.

 

[Gabriel_of_12]

Papal infallibility, in the Catholic understanding, runs as follows: the bishop of Rome, endowed with the charisms of his office as the successor of St. Peter and head of the visible Church, is protected by the Holy Spirit from teaching error on faith and morals when he solemnly defines for all the faithful a matter of doctrine in an official and public manner.

That definition was written off the top of my head, without looking at the Catholic catechism.

Now, where do we see papal infallibility discussed or exercised during the first millennium?

And with your spirit.

Well I asked for an Orthodox definition of infallibility not a short Catholic catechism definition.

St.Paul proclaimed “Christ crucified” that is an infallible statement without ever having to apply the term.

The Popes proclaimed “Christ crucified” that is an infallible statement without error.

St.Peter “You are the Christ, the Son of the living God” Peter from scripture speaks infallibly. There are many examples from scripture and sacred tradition that the apostles, Peter, and the Popes have spoken infallibly.

The doctrines defined, taught and proclaimed from the early councils have infallibility (without error) attached to them without ever using the term.

The Pope declares this infallibility not that he is a superhuman like most Orthodox like to falsely claim. Infallibility is a protection to the apostolic teachings and divine revelations unchanged.

Peace be with you

 

[Gabriel_of_12]

False. Several Councils and regional synods have been held since that point, and although they are not called ecumenical, the inclusion of their anathematisms into the Synodikon of Orthodoxy makes their doctrinal authority undisputable.

Synods? addresses the local church. I was referencing councils that deal with the whole of christendom what you reference as your synods are never “ecumenical” councils.

Your synod conclusions only effect those Orthodox in union with one another, and not the whole body of the apostolic faith.

In the West we have synod’s also, that deals with disciplines, morality, and social issues of the time that may be infecting the body of Christ that may or may not be addressing the local church, such as addressing a certain new secular teaching, the priesthood, laity etc.

Peace be with you

 

[Cavaradossi]

So all you need to do is prove that the Synodikon is a sine qua non of Orthodoxy and that all those who belong with the Orthodox Church profess it in exactly the same form.

The Synodikon of Orthodoxy began as the synodal decree of the Synod of Constantinople overturning the second iconoclasm, an event which is celebrated as the Triumph of Orthodoxy, celebrated on the first Sunday of Great Lent. To add something to this document, which is supposed to be read liturgically on the Sunday of Orthodoxy (although due to its length it is often truncated), is a most grave occasion, not only altering some synodal document, but actually altering something which is used liturgically and proclaimed publicly once a year as the standard of Orthodoxy. So yes, the Synodikon is the sine qua non of Orthodoxy, and none may be Orthodox who do not confess it to be true.

 

[Cavaradossi]

Synods? addresses the local church. I was referencing councils that deal with the whole of christendom what you reference as your synods are never “ecumenical” councils.

Your synod conclusions only effect those Orthodox in union with one another, and not the whole body of the apostolic faith.

In the West we have synod’s also, that deals with disciplines, morality, and social issues of the time that may be infecting the body of Christ that may or may not be addressing the local church, such as addressing a certain new secular teaching, the priesthood, laity etc.

Peace be with you

The synods which altered the Synodikon of Orthodoxy however, felt that they had the authority to alter a document which contains all of the condemnations of major heresies since iconoclasm. Your original contention was that the Orthodox, after the papacy went its own direction during the Gregorian Reforms, did not claim the authority to teach for the Church, not having a bishop of Rome. This is manifestly false as the alterations to the Synodikon of Orthodoxy show, because the Synodikon of Orthodoxy is meant to declare with authority what the true Christian Faith is, and what one must believe in order to be Christian.

 

[Gabriel_of_12]

The Synodikon of Orthodoxy began as the synodal decree of the Synod of Constantinople overturning the second iconoclasm, an event which is celebrated as the Triumph of Orthodoxy, celebrated on the first Sunday of Great Lent. To add something to this document, which is supposed to be read liturgically on the Sunday of Orthodoxy (although due to its length it is often truncated), is a most grave occasion, not only altering some synodal document, but actually altering something which is used liturgically and proclaimed publicly once a year as the standard of Orthodoxy. So yes, the Synodikon is the sine qua non of Orthodoxy, and none may be Orthodox who do not confess it to be true.

The Iconclasm was a heresy that infected the Eastern Church’s, the West did not have a problem with Icons and relics. The West applauds the synod and the EO, EC to hold such celebrations so as to never fall victim to Iconoclasm.

In short had the Iconoclasm infected the West as severely as the East an ecumenical council may have been called in to judge infallibly against the Iconoclast’s.

 

[aemcpa]

The Iconclasm was a heresy that infected the Eastern Church’s, the West did not have a problem with Icons and relics. The West applauds the synod and the EO, EC to hold such celebrations so as to never fall victim to Iconoclasm.

In short had the Iconoclasm infected the West as severely as the East an ecumenical council may have been called in to judge infallibly against the Iconoclast’s.

Nicaea II, the Seventh Ecumenical Council, anathematized iconoclasm in 787. The Pope of Rome had to smack down the heresy because Constantinople could not.

 

[Cavaradossi]

Nicaea II, the Seventh Ecumenical Council, anathematized iconoclasm in 787. The Pope of Rome had to smack down the heresy because Constantinople could not.

That flies the face of history. The role that the Bishop of Rome played in defeating the iconoclasm was quite minor by comparison to the role which the East played. It was in the East where all of the major arguments against iconoclasm were developed, and it was only by the efforts of the Empress Irene that the Second Council of Nicaea could even be called. It is in fact quite incredible to claim that this very same papacy, which—owing to its own impotence during those centuries—could not on its own authority force the Franks to accept the Second Council of Nicaea or force the Northern Italians and Visigoths to accept the Second Council of Constantinople, was capable of “smacking down” heresies which the East was not itself capable of defeating.

 

[aemcpa]

That flies the face of history. The role that the Bishop of Rome played in defeating the iconoclasm was quite minor by comparison to the role which the East played. It was in the East where all of the major arguments against iconoclasm were developed, and it was only by the efforts of the Empress Irene that the Second Council of Nicaea could even be called. It is in fact quite incredible to claim that this very same papacy, which—owing to its own impotence during those centuries—could not on its own authority force the Franks to accept the Second Council of Nicaea or force the Northern Italians and Visigoths to accept the Second Council of Constantinople, was capable of “smacking down” heresies which the East was not itself capable of defeating.

It was also in the East where iconoclasm developed and ran rampant even through the Patriarchs.

 

[dzheremi]

Never let the truth in the way of a comforting story, I guess.

 

[Cavaradossi]

It was also in the East where iconoclasm developed and ran rampant even through the Patriarchs.

And it was in the East where it was defeated. I fail to see your point. The idea, that the papacy could “smack down” heresies which the East couldn’t defeat, when the papacy at that time was not even capable of getting bishops which were supposedly under its jurisdiction in the West to accept certain councils as authoritative Ecumenical Councils, is absurd.

 

[Trebor135]

It was also in the East where iconoclasm developed and ran rampant even through the Patriarchs.

It was in the West where Protestantism developed and ran rampant. Not through the patriarchs, though–there weren’t any possible candidates other than the bishop of Rome.

 

[Gabriel_of_12]

Cavaradossi; It is in fact quite incredible to claim that** this very same papacy, which—owing to its own impotence **during those centuries—could not on its own authority force the Franks to accept the Second Council of Nicaea or force the Northern Italians and Visigoths to accept the Second Council of Constantinople, was capable of “smacking down” heresies which the East was not itself capable of defeating.

I would welcome a response from Sharpag to Cavaradossi’s insult on the pope as being impotent.

Just so that you are aware of this history Cavaradossi, **your Eastern Patriach was heavenly influencing and being influenced by secular powers. **The popes refused to allow your emperor or the Franks or the Northern Italians to get into Church affairs pertaining to doctrines.

Your insult only proves that your patriarchs in the East had succumbed to the secular powers, the Popes would not have it. Including the early church Eastern saints whom we both venerate left Constantinople to seclusion in Monasticism, so as not to be influenced by your secular Emperoros.

As you know there is always two sides to every story.

Let’s tone it down a little so that the moderaters don’t close the thread, please and thank you.

Peace be with you

 

[Gabriel_of_12]

Cavaradossi;10696443]The synods which altered the Synodikon of Orthodoxy however, felt that they had the authority to alter a document

The Synodikon of Orthodoxy claims it’s authority to alter a document from a feeling? The Popes will never act from a feeling. The Popes have acted in past councils and defeated heresies because Jesus gave the authority to Peter to bind and loose on earth with the keys to the Kingdom of God, the popes have never acted because he felt like it. The Popes and councils acted due to divine authority to do so. Something is wrong with your commentary.

Your original contention was that the Orthodox, after the papacy went its own direction during the Gregorian Reforms, did not claim the authority to teach for the Church, not having a bishop of Rome. This is manifestly false as the alterations to the Synodikon of Orthodoxy show, because the Synodikon of Orthodoxy is meant to declare with authority what the true Christian Faith is, and what one must believe in order to be Christian.

Iam sorry but I absoultely do not have the faintest idea what you are talking about here. I think you got me mixed up with another poster’s post.

Peace be with you

 

[Cavaradossi]

I would welcome a response from Sharpag to Cavaradossi’s insult on the pope as being impotent.

It was no insult, simply a fact. The papacy in the last few centuries of the first millennium was plagued with impotency, something which eventually led to the Gregorian Reforms, which reversed the situation, investing greater authority in the papacy than it ever possessed in the preceding millennium.

Just so that you are aware of this history Cavaradossi, your Eastern Patriach was heavenly influencing and being influenced by secular powers.

I often see this repeated, but consider this: If the Eastern Church were truly under the thumbs of the emperors, then the union of Lyons, which was driven almost entirely by imperial initiative and a tiny party of unionists, would have achieved a lasting union. That it didn’t is quite indicative to the contrary.

The popes refused to allow your emperor or the Franks or the Northern Italians to get into Church affairs pertaining to doctrines.

Demonstrably false. For starters, there was the so-called “Byzantine Papacy,” which lasted for about two centuries after Justinian’s reclamation of the Italian Peninsula. During this period, all papal candidates were first approved before ordination by either the Emperor in Constantinople or the Exarch in Ravenna, with the candidate paying to either the Emperor or the Exarch a large sum of money as part of a tax (which served more than anything as a sort of gratuity, paid for the service of approving a candidate). In fact, the emperor Justinian downright installed one pope (Pope Vigilius), and had another appointed through an election of disputed legitimacy (Pope Pelagius). Also, why do you call him “your emperor”? Whose emperor? My emperor? I have no emperor but Christ, as I do not live in some bygone era of kings and emperors.

Even before the Byzantine Papacy, there was also the era of Ostrogothic rule, during which Ostrogoth Kings interfered several times in the affairs of the papacy, with King Theodoric the Great deciding whether Symmachus or Laurentius was the legitimate pope (he sided with Pope Symmachus), and with King Athalaric forcing Pope John II to reform the system of papal election, which at that point had suffered from almost half a century from the practice of a pope appointing his own successor.

After the Byzantine Papacy, the Franks did in fact also interfere in the affairs of the papacy. Much like the Ostrogoths they were involved in determining the legitimacy of a papal claimant in times of schism, with Louis the Pious confirming Pope Eugene II to be the legitimate pope, and Lothair siding with Pope Sergius II over the claimant John. During this time, it was customary too to inform the Frankish rulers of the installing of a new pope, and even to have new popes swear allegiance to the Frankish King (as was the case during the reign of Charlemagne).

Your insult only proves that your patriarchs in the East had succumbed to the secular powers,

I do not see how the consequent of his statement actually follows from the antecedent (which as I have demonstrated, is a false accusation, as it is no insult to point out the historical fact that the papacy was weak during the last centuries of the first millennium).

the Popes would not have it.

False. As mentioned above, the popes were happy to cooperate with the civil authorities, if doing so would help secure the legitimacy of their elections over a rival claimant to the see of Rome, or if the civil authorities claimed the power to confirm elections

Including the early church Eastern saints whom we both venerate left Constantinople to seclusion in Monasticism, so as not to be influenced by your secular Emperoros.

Most that went into seclusion did not do so to get away from the Emperors (who by the way are not my emperors; it would be nice if you would cease speaking of them that way), but to get away from society in general. Others did so in order to go into quiet retirement after growing too old to administer the affairs of their diocese (much like what the previous Roman Catholic Pope, Benedict XVI has just done).

As you know there is always two sides to every story.

That is why factual information is so important.

Let’s tone it down a little so that the moderaters don’t close the thread, please and thank you.

I do not see what the problem is. It appears to me as if a rational discussion involving historical data and their interpretation is going on, nothing more.

Peace be with you

God grant you many years.

 

[GaryTaylor]

It was in the West where Protestantism developed and ran rampant. Not through the patriarchs, though–there weren’t any possible candidates other than the bishop of Rome.

And the East where Islam ran rampant. Still is. I’ll take the Protestants, they believe in Jesus Christ crucified.