Wandile
Archon
I'm curious to known what makes a council ecumenical in Eastern Orthodoxy and Oriental Orthodoxy?
Being Ecumenical (in the old sense of the word, not how the WCC defines it).Wandile said:I'm curious to known what makes a council ecumenical in Eastern Orthodoxy and Oriental Orthodoxy?
Acceptance by the faithful. His sheep shall know His voice.Wandile said:I'm curious to known what makes a council ecumenical in Eastern Orthodoxy and Oriental Orthodoxy?
Binding on the whole churchialmisry said:Being Ecumenical (in the old sense of the word, not how the WCC defines it).Wandile said:I'm curious to known what makes a council ecumenical in Eastern Orthodoxy and Oriental Orthodoxy?
I've always had a problem with this explanation and honestly think this is not the true Orthodox answer. Its Ahistorical as none of the 7 ecumenical councils were accepted by all faithful... None of themYurysprudentsiya said:Acceptance by the faithful. His sheep shall know His voice.Wandile said:I'm curious to known what makes a council ecumenical in Eastern Orthodoxy and Oriental Orthodoxy?
I see what you did thereminasoliman said:In my opinion, what makes a council back then "ecumenical" is what makes the patriarch of Constantinople "ecumenical", which is what made the guards of the emperor "ecumenical", and probably the emperor's barber "ecumenical".![]()
They are today.Wandile said:I've always had a problem with this explanation and honestly think this is not the true Orthodox answer. Its Ahistorical as none of the 7 ecumenical councils were accepted by all faithful... None of themYurysprudentsiya said:Acceptance by the faithful. His sheep shall know His voice.Wandile said:I'm curious to known what makes a council ecumenical in Eastern Orthodoxy and Oriental Orthodoxy?
This is true only if circular reasoning is a valid argument. The councils didn't only become ecumenical in 2013. Niceae I was ecumenical in the 4th century. Yet tones of bishops and priests rejected it as well as their faithful. Same with Chalcedon. In fact the Non Chalcedonians were part of the church up until and during the council and yet they rejected it....Yurysprudentsiya said:They are today.Wandile said:I've always had a problem with this explanation and honestly think this is not the true Orthodox answer. Its Ahistorical as none of the 7 ecumenical councils were accepted by all faithful... None of themYurysprudentsiya said:Acceptance by the faithful. His sheep shall know His voice.Wandile said:I'm curious to known what makes a council ecumenical in Eastern Orthodoxy and Oriental Orthodoxy?
You cannot try to prove the validity of something like this externally. We stand on Christs promise by faith. We reject scholasticism and it's progeny. As to Chalcedon, the OOs may very well accept its teaching because it's teaching, and their response, was misunderstood by both sides for political reasons. We now know that most likely their teaching does not contradict Chalcedon, which condemned a theology which they did not embrace and do not embrace.Wandile said:This is true only if circular reasoning is a valid argument. The councils didn't only become ecumenical in 2013. Niceae I was ecumenical in the 4th century. Yet tones of bishops and priests rejected it as well as their faithful. Same with Chalcedon. In fact the Non Chalcedonians were part of the church up until and during the council and yet they rejected it....Yurysprudentsiya said:They are today.Wandile said:I've always had a problem with this explanation and honestly think this is not the true Orthodox answer. Its Ahistorical as none of the 7 ecumenical councils were accepted by all faithful... None of themYurysprudentsiya said:Acceptance by the faithful. His sheep shall know His voice.Wandile said:I'm curious to known what makes a council ecumenical in Eastern Orthodoxy and Oriental Orthodoxy?
All of them. Heretics don't get a vote.Wandile said:I've always had a problem with this explanation and honestly think this is not the true Orthodox answer. Its Ahistorical as none of the 7 ecumenical councils were accepted by all faithful... None of themYurysprudentsiya said:Acceptance by the faithful. His sheep shall know His voice.Wandile said:I'm curious to known what makes a council ecumenical in Eastern Orthodoxy and Oriental Orthodoxy?
Then the First one wouldn't be Ecumenical, as Pope St. Athanasius found out five times.minasoliman said:In my opinion, what makes a council back then "ecumenical" is what makes the patriarch of Constantinople "ecumenical", which is what made the guards of the emperor "ecumenical", and probably the emperor's barber "ecumenical".![]()
"The Supreme Pontiff speaks infallibly when he speaks ex cathedra"Wandile said:This is true only if circular reasoning is a valid argument.Yurysprudentsiya said:They are today.Wandile said:I've always had a problem with this explanation and honestly think this is not the true Orthodox answer. Its Ahistorical as none of the 7 ecumenical councils were accepted by all faithful... None of themYurysprudentsiya said:Acceptance by the faithful. His sheep shall know His voice.Wandile said:I'm curious to known what makes a council ecumenical in Eastern Orthodoxy and Oriental Orthodoxy?
The did ay the councils... Arius and one other voted for himself. He was part of the church until excommunicated. Many of his followers while in the church rejected Niceae then left the church. That means at a point in time, the council was not accepted by all...yet it was still binding,on all as the council conducted itself as such.ialmisry said:All of them. Heretics don't get a vote.Wandile said:I've always had a problem with this explanation and honestly think this is not the true Orthodox answer. Its Ahistorical as none of the 7 ecumenical councils were accepted by all faithful... None of themYurysprudentsiya said:Acceptance by the faithful. His sheep shall know His voice.Wandile said:I'm curious to known what makes a council ecumenical in Eastern Orthodoxy and Oriental Orthodoxy?
It is the "explanation" manifested in history. No other contender can make its case.
But you cannot ignore that some of the faithful rejected the council either. The fact remains is they rejected the council. And at that point in tie they were part of the churchYurysprudentsiya said:You cannot try to prove the validity of something like this externally. We stand on Christs promise by faith. We reject scholasticism and it's progeny. As to Chalcedon, the OOs may very well accept its teaching because it's teaching, and their response, was misunderstood by both sides for political reasons. We now know that most likely their teaching does not contradict Chalcedon, which condemned a theology which they did not embrace and do not embrace.Wandile said:This is true only if circular reasoning is a valid argument. The councils didn't only become ecumenical in 2013. Niceae I was ecumenical in the 4th century. Yet tones of bishops and priests rejected it as well as their faithful. Same with Chalcedon. In fact the Non Chalcedonians were part of the church up until and during the council and yet they rejected it....Yurysprudentsiya said:They are today.Wandile said:I've always had a problem with this explanation and honestly think this is not the true Orthodox answer. Its Ahistorical as none of the 7 ecumenical councils were accepted by all faithful... None of themYurysprudentsiya said:Acceptance by the faithful. His sheep shall know His voice.Wandile said:I'm curious to known what makes a council ecumenical in Eastern Orthodoxy and Oriental Orthodoxy?
you just demolished your own argument:Wandile said:The did ay the councils... Arius and one other voted for himself. He was part of the church until excommunicated. Many of his followers while in the church rejected Niceae then left the church. That means at a point in time, the council was not accepted by all...yet it was still binding,on all as the council conducted itself as such.ialmisry said:All of them. Heretics don't get a vote.Wandile said:I've always had a problem with this explanation and honestly think this is not the true Orthodox answer. Its Ahistorical as none of the 7 ecumenical councils were accepted by all faithful... None of themYurysprudentsiya said:Acceptance by the faithful. His sheep shall know His voice.Wandile said:I'm curious to known what makes a council ecumenical in Eastern Orthodoxy and Oriental Orthodoxy?
It is the "explanation" manifested in history. No other contender can make its case.
The reason why heresies were addressed was because factions within the church taught troubling doctrines. So to simply ignore them and say they don't have a vote is Ahistorical and circular :-\
Btw, Arius, being just a priest, didn't get a vote.Wandile said:Many of his followers while in the church rejected Niceae then left the church.
The Emperor Julian didn't really care about whether Nicaea was ecumenical or not. Constantine banished St. Athanasius because of non-theological reasons.ialmisry said:"The Supreme Pontiff speaks infallibly when he speaks ex cathedra"Wandile said:This is true only if circular reasoning is a valid argument.Yurysprudentsiya said:They are today.Wandile said:I've always had a problem with this explanation and honestly think this is not the true Orthodox answer. Its Ahistorical as none of the 7 ecumenical councils were accepted by all faithful... None of themYurysprudentsiya said:Acceptance by the faithful. His sheep shall know His voice.Wandile said:I'm curious to known what makes a council ecumenical in Eastern Orthodoxy and Oriental Orthodoxy?
How do we know that?
"He said so. Ex cathedra."
Oh. And how do we know when he speaks ex cathedra?
"We know when we know it."
Oh. :![]()
Quite right. Such people excommunicate themselves.ialmisry said:you just demolished your own argument:Wandile said:The did ay the councils... Arius and one other voted for himself. He was part of the church until excommunicated. Many of his followers while in the church rejected Niceae then left the church. That means at a point in time, the council was not accepted by all...yet it was still binding,on all as the council conducted itself as such.ialmisry said:All of them. Heretics don't get a vote.Wandile said:I've always had a problem with this explanation and honestly think this is not the true Orthodox answer. Its Ahistorical as none of the 7 ecumenical councils were accepted by all faithful... None of themYurysprudentsiya said:Acceptance by the faithful. His sheep shall know His voice.Wandile said:I'm curious to known what makes a council ecumenical in Eastern Orthodoxy and Oriental Orthodoxy?
It is the "explanation" manifested in history. No other contender can make its case.
The reason why heresies were addressed was because factions within the church taught troubling doctrines. So to simply ignore them and say they don't have a vote is Ahistorical and circular :-\
Btw, Arius, being just a priest, didn't get a vote.Wandile said:Many of his followers while in the church rejected Niceae then left the church.
If a bishop got up today and said "there was a time when He was not," we don't need to wait until he is formally deposed/excommunicated. We know to stay away from him, knowing he was among us but not of us.
incorrect...ialmisry said:"The Supreme Pontiff speaks infallibly when he speaks ex cathedra"Wandile said:This is true only if circular reasoning is a valid argument.Yurysprudentsiya said:They are today.Wandile said:I've always had a problem with this explanation and honestly think this is not the true Orthodox answer. Its Ahistorical as none of the 7 ecumenical councils were accepted by all faithful... None of themYurysprudentsiya said:Acceptance by the faithful. His sheep shall know His voice.Wandile said:I'm curious to known what makes a council ecumenical in Eastern Orthodoxy and Oriental Orthodoxy?
How do we know that?
"He said so. Ex cathedra."
Oh. And how do we know when he speaks ex cathedra?
"We know when we know it."
Oh. :![]()
If they were Faithful, they wouldn't reject the Council.Wandile said:But you cannot ignore that some of the faithful rejected the council either.Yurysprudentsiya said:You cannot try to prove the validity of something like this externally. We stand on Christs promise by faith. We reject scholasticism and it's progeny. As to Chalcedon, the OOs may very well accept its teaching because it's teaching, and their response, was misunderstood by both sides for political reasons. We now know that most likely their teaching does not contradict Chalcedon, which condemned a theology which they did not embrace and do not embrace.Wandile said:This is true only if circular reasoning is a valid argument. The councils didn't only become ecumenical in 2013. Niceae I was ecumenical in the 4th century. Yet tones of bishops and priests rejected it as well as their faithful. Same with Chalcedon. In fact the Non Chalcedonians were part of the church up until and during the council and yet they rejected it....Yurysprudentsiya said:They are today.Wandile said:I've always had a problem with this explanation and honestly think this is not the true Orthodox answer. Its Ahistorical as none of the 7 ecumenical councils were accepted by all faithful... None of themYurysprudentsiya said:Acceptance by the faithful. His sheep shall know His voice.Wandile said:I'm curious to known what makes a council ecumenical in Eastern Orthodoxy and Oriental Orthodoxy?
and now they are't. Like a gangrenous limb amputated as it was falling off.Wandile said:The fact remains is they rejected the council. And at that point in tie they were part of the church
Yes, but you get the point: Constantine's heirs didn't have the power to annul Nicene's status as Ecumenical, although they gave it a good try.Cyrillic said:The Emperor Julian didn't really care about whether Nicaea was ecumenical or not. Constantine banished St. Athanasius because of non-theological reasons.ialmisry said:"The Supreme Pontiff speaks infallibly when he speaks ex cathedra"Wandile said:This is true only if circular reasoning is a valid argument.Yurysprudentsiya said:They are today.Wandile said:I've always had a problem with this explanation and honestly think this is not the true Orthodox answer. Its Ahistorical as none of the 7 ecumenical councils were accepted by all faithful... None of themYurysprudentsiya said:Acceptance by the faithful. His sheep shall know His voice.Wandile said:I'm curious to known what makes a council ecumenical in Eastern Orthodoxy and Oriental Orthodoxy?
How do we know that?
"He said so. Ex cathedra."
Oh. And how do we know when he speaks ex cathedra?
"We know when we know it."
Oh. :![]()
Are you interested in how Orthodoxy (Eastern and Oriental) recognises councils as "ecumenical", as your OP states? Or was that simply a smokescreen to allow you to resume the OO baiting you've done in other threads (and for which I've previously called you out)?Wandile said:This is true only if circular reasoning is a valid argument. The councils didn't only become ecumenical in 2013. Niceae I was ecumenical in the 4th century. Yet tones of bishops and priests rejected it as well as their faithful. Same with Chalcedon. In fact the Non Chalcedonians were part of the church up until and during the council and yet they rejected it....
This is the dead end reached as the result of the wrong fork in the road taken when the Pope turned to Pepino the Short to protect the former western Empire rather than the lawful Byzantine emperor ca 755. To his credit, Pope Francis is trying to back up and seek out the correct model of conciliarity.Wandile said:incorrect...ialmisry said:"The Supreme Pontiff speaks infallibly when he speaks ex cathedra"Wandile said:This is true only if circular reasoning is a valid argument.Yurysprudentsiya said:They are today.Wandile said:I've always had a problem with this explanation and honestly think this is not the true Orthodox answer. Its Ahistorical as none of the 7 ecumenical councils were accepted by all faithful... None of themYurysprudentsiya said:Acceptance by the faithful. His sheep shall know His voice.Wandile said:I'm curious to known what makes a council ecumenical in Eastern Orthodoxy and Oriental Orthodoxy?
How do we know that?
"He said so. Ex cathedra."
Oh. And how do we know when he speaks ex cathedra?
"We know when we know it."
Oh. :![]()
The Supreme Pontiff speaks infallibly when he speaks ex cathedra
How do we know that?
the 20th ecumenical council teaches us so
Oh. And how do we know when he speaks ex cathedra?
The First Vatican Council tells us how we may know :
◦we teach and define as a divinely revealed dogma that
when the Roman pontiff speaks EX CATHEDRA,
that is, when, 1.in the exercise of his office as shepherd and teacher of all Christians,
2.in virtue of his supreme apostolic authority,
3.he defines a doctrine concerning faith or morals to be held by the whole church,
he possesses,
by the divine assistance promised to him in blessed Peter,
that infallibility which the divine Redeemer willed his church to enjoy in defining doctrine concerning faith or morals.
Therefore, such definitions of the Roman pontiff are of themselves, and not by the consent of the church, irreformable.
How do we know what statements are ex cathedra, Wandile? Even RC's can't agree on how many there are, which they are, etc. Canonisations, for example, are widely touted as infallible statements, and yet they're never counted among "ex cathedra" statements in the same way as the dogmas of 1854 and 1950 are.Wandile said:The Supreme Pontiff speaks infallibly when he speaks ex cathedra
How do we know that?
the 20th ecumenical council teaches us so
Oh. And how do we know when he speaks ex cathedra?
The First Vatican Council tells us how we may know :
◦we teach and define as a divinely revealed dogma that
when the Roman pontiff speaks EX CATHEDRA,
that is, when, 1.in the exercise of his office as shepherd and teacher of all Christians,
2.in virtue of his supreme apostolic authority,
3.he defines a doctrine concerning faith or morals to be held by the whole church,
he possesses,
by the divine assistance promised to him in blessed Peter,
that infallibility which the divine Redeemer willed his church to enjoy in defining doctrine concerning faith or morals.
Therefore, such definitions of the Roman pontiff are of themselves, and not by the consent of the church, irreformable.
And when does he not exercise his office as shepherd and teacher of all Christians? When does he do anything not "in virtue of his supreme apostolic authority? Does he ever define a doctrine concerning faith and moral to be held by some people but not the whole church?Wandile said:incorrect...ialmisry said:"The Supreme Pontiff speaks infallibly when he speaks ex cathedra"Wandile said:This is true only if circular reasoning is a valid argument.Yurysprudentsiya said:They are today.Wandile said:I've always had a problem with this explanation and honestly think this is not the true Orthodox answer. Its Ahistorical as none of the 7 ecumenical councils were accepted by all faithful... None of themYurysprudentsiya said:Acceptance by the faithful. His sheep shall know His voice.Wandile said:I'm curious to known what makes a council ecumenical in Eastern Orthodoxy and Oriental Orthodoxy?
How do we know that?
"He said so. Ex cathedra."
Oh. And how do we know when he speaks ex cathedra?
"We know when we know it."
Oh. :![]()
The Supreme Pontiff speaks infallibly when he speaks ex cathedra
How do we know that?
the 20th ecumenical council teaches us so
Oh. And how do we know when he speaks ex cathedra?
The First Vatican Council tells us how we may know :
◦we teach and define as a divinely revealed dogma that
when the Roman pontiff speaks EX CATHEDRA,
that is, when, 1.in the exercise of his office as shepherd and teacher of all Christians,
2.in virtue of his supreme apostolic authority,
3.he defines a doctrine concerning faith or morals to be held by the whole church,
he possesses,
by the divine assistance promised to him in blessed Peter,
that infallibility which the divine Redeemer willed his church to enjoy in defining doctrine concerning faith or morals.
Therefore, such definitions of the Roman pontiff are of themselves, and not by the consent of the church, irreformable.
You seem to miss my point, Isa. Go back and read what I wrote. You're not using ecumenical in the manner I was alluding to.ialmisry said:Then the First one wouldn't be Ecumenical, as Pope St. Athanasius found out five times.minasoliman said:In my opinion, what makes a council back then "ecumenical" is what makes the patriarch of Constantinople "ecumenical", which is what made the guards of the emperor "ecumenical", and probably the emperor's barber "ecumenical".![]()
I mean exactly what I've said in my OP. But some answers given aren't true to history so I'm questioning them...Mor Ephrem said:Are you interested in how Orthodoxy (Eastern and Oriental) recognises councils as "ecumenical", as your OP states? Or was that simply a smokescreen to allow you to resume the OO baiting you've done in other threads (and for which I've previously called you out)?Wandile said:This is true only if circular reasoning is a valid argument. The councils didn't only become ecumenical in 2013. Niceae I was ecumenical in the 4th century. Yet tones of bishops and priests rejected it as well as their faithful. Same with Chalcedon. In fact the Non Chalcedonians were part of the church up until and during the council and yet they rejected it....
Orthodox Rome knew how to unite, non-Orthodox Rome can and will only divide and conquer.
in the exercise of his office as shepherd and teacher of all Christians,Mor Ephrem said:How do we know what statements are ex cathedra, Wandile? Even RC's can't agree on how many there are, which they are, etc. Canonisations, for example, are widely touted as infallible statements, and yet they're never counted among "ex cathedra" statements in the same way as the dogmas of 1854 and 1950 are.Wandile said:The Supreme Pontiff speaks infallibly when he speaks ex cathedra
How do we know that?
the 20th ecumenical council teaches us so
Oh. And how do we know when he speaks ex cathedra?
The First Vatican Council tells us how we may know :
◦we teach and define as a divinely revealed dogma that
when the Roman pontiff speaks EX CATHEDRA,
that is, when, 1.in the exercise of his office as shepherd and teacher of all Christians,
2.in virtue of his supreme apostolic authority,
3.he defines a doctrine concerning faith or morals to be held by the whole church,
he possesses,
by the divine assistance promised to him in blessed Peter,
that infallibility which the divine Redeemer willed his church to enjoy in defining doctrine concerning faith or morals.
Therefore, such definitions of the Roman pontiff are of themselves, and not by the consent of the church, irreformable.
but the answers given which aren't true to history are the ones you are giving.Wandile said:I mean exactly what I've said in my OP. But some answers given aren't true to history so I'm questioning them...Mor Ephrem said:Are you interested in how Orthodoxy (Eastern and Oriental) recognises councils as "ecumenical", as your OP states? Or was that simply a smokescreen to allow you to resume the OO baiting you've done in other threads (and for which I've previously called you out)?Wandile said:This is true only if circular reasoning is a valid argument. The councils didn't only become ecumenical in 2013. Niceae I was ecumenical in the 4th century. Yet tones of bishops and priests rejected it as well as their faithful. Same with Chalcedon. In fact the Non Chalcedonians were part of the church up until and during the council and yet they rejected it....
Orthodox Rome knew how to unite, non-Orthodox Rome can and will only divide and conquer.
OK, Inquisitor Winston Smith.Wandile said:Now I don't "Oriental orthodox bait"... I just refer to history...plain and simple. .
when he writes as private theologianialmisry said:And when does he not exercise his office as shepherd and teacher of all Christians? When does he do anything not "in virtue of his supreme apostolic authority? Does he ever define a doctrine concerning faith and moral to be held by some people but not the whole church?Wandile said:incorrect...ialmisry said:"The Supreme Pontiff speaks infallibly when he speaks ex cathedra"Wandile said:This is true only if circular reasoning is a valid argument.Yurysprudentsiya said:They are today.Wandile said:I've always had a problem with this explanation and honestly think this is not the true Orthodox answer. Its Ahistorical as none of the 7 ecumenical councils were accepted by all faithful... None of themYurysprudentsiya said:Acceptance by the faithful. His sheep shall know His voice.Wandile said:I'm curious to known what makes a council ecumenical in Eastern Orthodoxy and Oriental Orthodoxy?
How do we know that?
"He said so. Ex cathedra."
Oh. And how do we know when he speaks ex cathedra?
"We know when we know it."
Oh. :![]()
The Supreme Pontiff speaks infallibly when he speaks ex cathedra
How do we know that?
the 20th ecumenical council teaches us so
Oh. And how do we know when he speaks ex cathedra?
The First Vatican Council tells us how we may know :
◦we teach and define as a divinely revealed dogma that
when the Roman pontiff speaks EX CATHEDRA,
that is, when, 1.in the exercise of his office as shepherd and teacher of all Christians,
2.in virtue of his supreme apostolic authority,
3.he defines a doctrine concerning faith or morals to be held by the whole church,
he possesses,
by the divine assistance promised to him in blessed Peter,
that infallibility which the divine Redeemer willed his church to enjoy in defining doctrine concerning faith or morals.
Therefore, such definitions of the Roman pontiff are of themselves, and not by the consent of the church, irreformable.
If it were so easy to know, you'd have an authoritative-magisterial-list of when he has done so. At least a number of times ya'll can agree on. But as it is, in the one instance ya'll are agreed on, Munificentissimus Deus, ya'll can't agree on which part is "infallible."
We answered your question of how the church makes this determination. You found the answer preposterous, apparently, as is your right. But it is still the answer.Wandile said:I mean exactly what I've said in my OP. But some answers given aren't true to history so I'm questioning them...Mor Ephrem said:Are you interested in how Orthodoxy (Eastern and Oriental) recognises councils as "ecumenical", as your OP states? Or was that simply a smokescreen to allow you to resume the OO baiting you've done in other threads (and for which I've previously called you out)?Wandile said:This is true only if circular reasoning is a valid argument. The councils didn't only become ecumenical in 2013. Niceae I was ecumenical in the 4th century. Yet tones of bishops and priests rejected it as well as their faithful. Same with Chalcedon. In fact the Non Chalcedonians were part of the church up until and during the council and yet they rejected it....
Orthodox Rome knew how to unite, non-Orthodox Rome can and will only divide and conquer.
Now I don't "Oriental orthodox bait"... I just refer to history...plain and simple. You don't own that port in of history.
Now if you want contribute by answering the OP then go ahead ... But please, enough of this ..
by repeating the mantra, over and overWandile said:in the exercise of his office as shepherd and teacher of all Christians,Mor Ephrem said:How do we know what statements are ex cathedra, Wandile? Even RC's can't agree on how many there are, which they are, etc. Canonisations, for example, are widely touted as infallible statements, and yet they're never counted among "ex cathedra" statements in the same way as the dogmas of 1854 and 1950 are.Wandile said:The Supreme Pontiff speaks infallibly when he speaks ex cathedra
How do we know that?
the 20th ecumenical council teaches us so
Oh. And how do we know when he speaks ex cathedra?
The First Vatican Council tells us how we may know :
◦we teach and define as a divinely revealed dogma that
when the Roman pontiff speaks EX CATHEDRA,
that is, when, 1.in the exercise of his office as shepherd and teacher of all Christians,
2.in virtue of his supreme apostolic authority,
3.he defines a doctrine concerning faith or morals to be held by the whole church,
he possesses,
by the divine assistance promised to him in blessed Peter,
that infallibility which the divine Redeemer willed his church to enjoy in defining doctrine concerning faith or morals.
Therefore, such definitions of the Roman pontiff are of themselves, and not by the consent of the church, irreformable.
2.in virtue of his supreme apostolic authority,
3.he defines a doctrine concerning faith or morals to be held by the whole church,
that's how we know
Neither does Rome.Wandile said:Now I don't "Oriental orthodox bait"... I just refer to history...plain and simple. You don't own that port in of history.
Here is some homework.Now if you want contribute by answering the OP then go ahead ... But please, enough of this ..
No serious Orthodox theologians hold the position of the laity must accept the council. Thy recognize how Ahistorical the position is... Chalcedon is a prime example of how the Alexandrians never accepted the council showing that some faithful rejected and yet the council was still ecumenicalialmisry said:but the answers given which aren't true to history are the ones you are giving.Wandile said:I mean exactly what I've said in my OP. But some answers given aren't true to history so I'm questioning them...Mor Ephrem said:Are you interested in how Orthodoxy (Eastern and Oriental) recognises councils as "ecumenical", as your OP states? Or was that simply a smokescreen to allow you to resume the OO baiting you've done in other threads (and for which I've previously called you out)?Wandile said:This is true only if circular reasoning is a valid argument. The councils didn't only become ecumenical in 2013. Niceae I was ecumenical in the 4th century. Yet tones of bishops and priests rejected it as well as their faithful. Same with Chalcedon. In fact the Non Chalcedonians were part of the church up until and during the council and yet they rejected it....
Orthodox Rome knew how to unite, non-Orthodox Rome can and will only divide and conquer.
OK, Inquisitor Winston Smith.Wandile said:Now I don't "Oriental orthodox bait"... I just refer to history...plain and simple. .
I notice you had no answer to the other questions.Wandile said:when he writes as private theologian
lol because that's the answer :ialmisry said:by repeating the mantra, over and overWandile said:in the exercise of his office as shepherd and teacher of all Christians,Mor Ephrem said:How do we know what statements are ex cathedra, Wandile? Even RC's can't agree on how many there are, which they are, etc. Canonisations, for example, are widely touted as infallible statements, and yet they're never counted among "ex cathedra" statements in the same way as the dogmas of 1854 and 1950 are.Wandile said:The Supreme Pontiff speaks infallibly when he speaks ex cathedra
How do we know that?
the 20th ecumenical council teaches us so
Oh. And how do we know when he speaks ex cathedra?
The First Vatican Council tells us how we may know :
◦we teach and define as a divinely revealed dogma that
when the Roman pontiff speaks EX CATHEDRA,
that is, when, 1.in the exercise of his office as shepherd and teacher of all Christians,
2.in virtue of his supreme apostolic authority,
3.he defines a doctrine concerning faith or morals to be held by the whole church,
he possesses,
by the divine assistance promised to him in blessed Peter,
that infallibility which the divine Redeemer willed his church to enjoy in defining doctrine concerning faith or morals.
Therefore, such definitions of the Roman pontiff are of themselves, and not by the consent of the church, irreformable.
2.in virtue of his supreme apostolic authority,
3.he defines a doctrine concerning faith or morals to be held by the whole church,
that's how we know
![]()
Are you actually saying that the OO's are a gangrenous limb?ialmisry said:If they were Faithful, they wouldn't reject the Council... Like a gangrenous limb amputated as it was falling off.