• A blessed Nativity / Theophany season to all! For users new and old: the forum rules were streamlined when we transitioned to the new software. Please ensure that you are familiar with them. Continued use of the forum means that you (a) know the rules, and (b) pledge that you'll abide by them. For more information, check out the OrthodoxChristianity.Net Rules section. (There are only 2 threads there - Rules, and Administrative Structure.)

Ecumenical councils

ialmisry

Strategos
Joined
Aug 17, 2007
Messages
41,795
Reaction score
0
Points
36
Location
Chicago
Wandile said:
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).
 
Joined
Jul 6, 2011
Messages
2,737
Reaction score
0
Points
0
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

Archon
Joined
Nov 14, 2012
Messages
3,284
Reaction score
24
Points
38
Location
Johannesburg, South Africa
Yurysprudentsiya said:
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. 
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 them
 

minasoliman

Stratopedarches
Staff member
Moderator
Joined
May 24, 2004
Messages
20,198
Reaction score
1
Points
0
Location
NJ
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".  ;)
 
Joined
Jul 15, 2011
Messages
117
Reaction score
0
Points
0
In Orthodoxy, just like the Mysteries ("Sacraments"), we cannot really say we have 7 "concretely" but many more Mysteries ("Sacraments").  The same goes for the canon of Scripture being "concretely" reduced to 47 (or so OT books) and the 27 NT books.  In Orthodoxy, there were other synods which were convened -after the 7th, which could also be considered as "Ecumenical" in nature.  Here is some information regarding the "8th Ecumenical Synod" which may answer some -if not all- of your questions.
                                      ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
                                      ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Let us return, though, to the Eighth OEcumenical Synod. The Synod convened under the presidency of the “most holy OEcumenical Patriarch Photios”; around three hundred and ninety Bishops and Episcopal representatives took part; Pope John VIII appointed three delegates; and representatives of the three Patriarchates of the East also participated. The proceedings of the Synod commenced in November of 879 and concluded in March of 880. Seven sessions were held in all, and the transactions of this historic Synod in Hagia Sophia, “composed in Greek and preserved,” and published in 1705 by the illustrious Patriarch Dositheos of Jerusalem (1669-1707), as witnessed by a manuscript in the Athonite Monastery of Iveron.

The Holy Synod of 879-880 “was one of the most important Synods in the history of the Church,” and, being comprised of three hundred and ninety “Fathers, both Eastern and Western, representing the five Patriarchates, presented an imposing spectacle such as had not been seen since the time of the Fourth OEcumenical Synod of Chalcedon.”

The Synod of Hagia Sophia under St. Photios the Great bears all of the hallmarks of an OEcumenical Synod, both outwardly and inwardly, and consequently “it is not at all surprising that it was regarded as the Eighth OEcumenical Synod by [Patriarch Euythmios I (907-917)], Theodore Balsamon, Neilos of Thessalonica, Neilos of Rhodes, Symeon of Thessalonica, Mark of Ephesus, Gennadios Scholarios, Dositheos of Jerusalem, Constantine Oikonomos, and” many “others,” such as the important “Dialogue of a Certain Hieromnemon,” and by our contemporaries, St. Nectarios of Pentapolis, Archbishop Chrysostomos Papadoupoulos, Francis Dvornik, Archimandrite Basileios Stephanides, Father John Romanides, Protopresbyter George Metallinos, Metropolitan Hierotheos Blachos, et al. And this Synod also called itself OEcumenical in many places in its Proceedings and Canons, and Archimandrite Basileios Stephanides writes that “since it has not been officially recognized as the Eighth OEcumenical Synod, any OEcumenical Synod that may be convened in the future ought to deal with this issue.”

It is, however, time for us to identify “all of the canonical elements necessary for the convocation, work, and decisions of an OEcumenical Synod,” which elements, indeed, the illustrious and clearly anti-Papist Synod of Constantinople bring together in:
1. “Its convocation as an OEcumenical Synod, at which the five ancient Patriarchal thrones were represented”;
2. “its convocation by Emperor Basil I the Macedonian (867-886),” who “in fact, together with his sons, was the first to sign the dogmatic decree (Ὅρος) of the Synod and its Acts”;
3. “the large number of its members (338-390 Bishops)”;
4. “the functioning of the Synod in conformity with the traditional canonical functioning of the OEcumenical Synods”;
5. “its canonical regulations” (it promulgated three Canons);
6. “its stipulations about matters of Faith,” wherein, on pain of anathema, it designated that the Sacred Symbol of Faith (the Creed) was unalterable and inviolable;
7. “its clear awareness of its authenticity as an OEcumenical Synod,” as this is expressed “in its decision to number the Seventh OEcumenical Synod with the preceding OEcumenical Synods, which only OEcumenical Synods were entitled to do”;
8. and “the decisions made in this Synod, which were consonant with the decrees of the previous OEcumenical Synods, in accordance with the Tradition of the Church.”

The work accomplished by the great Synod of 879-880 was momentous both for that troubled period and for the future of the Church: it functioned in a unitive spirit on the basis of dogmatic Truth and ca-nonical Tradition; it condemned the alteration of the Symbol of Faith through the addition of the Filioque; ratified the Sacred Symbol as it was handed down to us by the first two OEcumenical Synods; and rejected the distortion of the simple Primacy of Honor due to the Bishop of Rome, who had transformed this into an administrative Primacy of Power over the entire Church.

St. Photios the Great also acted in a unitive spirit, refuted the Papal Primacy of Power and the adulteration of the Symbol of Faith with incontrovertible arguments, set forth the Orthodox positions with candor and clarity, and called upon the representatives of Pope John VIII to renounce their errors, which had led to the schism of 867.

St. Nectarios of Pentapolis states emphatically that
[t]he Eighth OEcumenical Synod has great importance [because] in this Synod Photios was triumphant..., his struggles for the independence of the Eastern Church were crowned with total success, and the Truth of Orthodoxy, for which he had toiled so hard, prevailed.... In a word, the triumph was complete: it was a political, an ecclesiastical, and a personal triumph.

:) hope that was helpful!
 

Wandile

Archon
Joined
Nov 14, 2012
Messages
3,284
Reaction score
24
Points
38
Location
Johannesburg, South Africa
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 see what you did there  :D
 

NicholasMyra

Merarches
Joined
Sep 19, 2010
Messages
8,838
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Website
hyperdoxherman.tumblr.com
I'm leaning towards Mina's answer. Ecumenical referred to the households (sees) of the "civilized world", so it's not a term of theological significance per se.
 
Joined
Jul 6, 2011
Messages
2,737
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Wandile said:
Yurysprudentsiya said:
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. 
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 them
They are today. 
 

Wandile

Archon
Joined
Nov 14, 2012
Messages
3,284
Reaction score
24
Points
38
Location
Johannesburg, South Africa
Yurysprudentsiya said:
Wandile said:
Yurysprudentsiya said:
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. 
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 them
They are today. 
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....
 
Joined
Jul 6, 2011
Messages
2,737
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Wandile said:
Yurysprudentsiya said:
Wandile said:
Yurysprudentsiya said:
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. 
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 them
They are today. 
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....
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. 
 

ialmisry

Strategos
Joined
Aug 17, 2007
Messages
41,795
Reaction score
0
Points
36
Location
Chicago
Wandile said:
Yurysprudentsiya said:
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.  
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 them
All of them. Heretics don't get a vote.

It is the "explanation" manifested in history. No other contender can make its case.
 

ialmisry

Strategos
Joined
Aug 17, 2007
Messages
41,795
Reaction score
0
Points
36
Location
Chicago
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".  ;)
Then the First one wouldn't be Ecumenical, as Pope St. Athanasius found out five times.
 

ialmisry

Strategos
Joined
Aug 17, 2007
Messages
41,795
Reaction score
0
Points
36
Location
Chicago
Wandile said:
Yurysprudentsiya said:
Wandile said:
Yurysprudentsiya said:
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.  
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 them
They are today.  
This is true only if circular reasoning is a valid argument.
"The Supreme Pontiff speaks infallibly when he speaks ex cathedra"

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. ::)
 

Wandile

Archon
Joined
Nov 14, 2012
Messages
3,284
Reaction score
24
Points
38
Location
Johannesburg, South Africa
ialmisry said:
Wandile said:
Yurysprudentsiya said:
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.  
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 them
All of them. Heretics don't get a vote.

It is the "explanation" manifested in history. No other contender can make its case.
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.

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  :-\
 

Wandile

Archon
Joined
Nov 14, 2012
Messages
3,284
Reaction score
24
Points
38
Location
Johannesburg, South Africa
Yurysprudentsiya said:
Wandile said:
Yurysprudentsiya said:
Wandile said:
Yurysprudentsiya said:
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. 
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 them
They are today. 
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....
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. 
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 church
 

ialmisry

Strategos
Joined
Aug 17, 2007
Messages
41,795
Reaction score
0
Points
36
Location
Chicago
Wandile said:
ialmisry said:
Wandile said:
Yurysprudentsiya said:
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.  
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 them
All of them. Heretics don't get a vote.

It is the "explanation" manifested in history. No other contender can make its case.
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.

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  :-\
you just demolished your own argument:
Wandile said:
Many of his followers while in the church rejected Niceae then left  the church.
Btw, Arius, being just a priest, didn't get a vote.

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.
 

Cyrillic

Toumarches
Joined
Jun 9, 2012
Messages
13,710
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Age
26
Location
Netherlands
ialmisry said:
Wandile said:
Yurysprudentsiya said:
Wandile said:
Yurysprudentsiya said:
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.  
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 them
They are today.  
This is true only if circular reasoning is a valid argument.
"The Supreme Pontiff speaks infallibly when he speaks ex cathedra"

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 Emperor Julian didn't really care about whether Nicaea was ecumenical or not. Constantine banished St. Athanasius because of non-theological reasons.
 
Joined
Jul 6, 2011
Messages
2,737
Reaction score
0
Points
0
ialmisry said:
Wandile said:
ialmisry said:
Wandile said:
Yurysprudentsiya said:
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.  
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 them
All of them. Heretics don't get a vote.

It is the "explanation" manifested in history. No other contender can make its case.
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.

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  :-\
you just demolished your own argument:
Wandile said:
Many of his followers while in the church rejected Niceae then left  the church.
Btw, Arius, being just a priest, didn't get a vote.

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.
Quite right.  Such people excommunicate themselves. 
 

Wandile

Archon
Joined
Nov 14, 2012
Messages
3,284
Reaction score
24
Points
38
Location
Johannesburg, South Africa
ialmisry said:
Wandile said:
Yurysprudentsiya said:
Wandile said:
Yurysprudentsiya said:
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.  
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 them
They are today.  
This is true only if circular reasoning is a valid argument.
"The Supreme Pontiff speaks infallibly when he speaks ex cathedra"

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. ::)
incorrect...

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.
 

ialmisry

Strategos
Joined
Aug 17, 2007
Messages
41,795
Reaction score
0
Points
36
Location
Chicago
Wandile said:
Yurysprudentsiya said:
Wandile said:
Yurysprudentsiya said:
Wandile said:
Yurysprudentsiya said:
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. 
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 them
They are today. 
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....
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. 
But you cannot ignore that some of the faithful rejected the council either.
If they were Faithful, they wouldn't reject the Council.

Sort of like the Sede Vacantists upholding Pastor Aeternus.

Wandile said:
The fact remains is they rejected the council. And at that point in tie they were part of the church
and now they are't.  Like a gangrenous limb amputated as it was falling off.
 

ialmisry

Strategos
Joined
Aug 17, 2007
Messages
41,795
Reaction score
0
Points
36
Location
Chicago
Cyrillic said:
ialmisry said:
Wandile said:
Yurysprudentsiya said:
Wandile said:
Yurysprudentsiya said:
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.  
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 them
They are today.  
This is true only if circular reasoning is a valid argument.
"The Supreme Pontiff speaks infallibly when he speaks ex cathedra"

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 Emperor Julian didn't really care about whether Nicaea was ecumenical or not. Constantine banished St. Athanasius because of non-theological reasons.
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.
 

Mor Ephrem

Hypatos
Staff member
Moderator
Joined
Oct 3, 2002
Messages
36,280
Reaction score
161
Points
63
Age
39
Location
New York!
Website
www.orthodoxchristianity.net
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....
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)?  

Orthodox Rome knew how to unite, non-Orthodox Rome can and will only divide and conquer.  
 
Joined
Jul 6, 2011
Messages
2,737
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Wandile said:
ialmisry said:
Wandile said:
Yurysprudentsiya said:
Wandile said:
Yurysprudentsiya said:
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.  
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 them
They are today.  
This is true only if circular reasoning is a valid argument.
"The Supreme Pontiff speaks infallibly when he speaks ex cathedra"

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. ::)
incorrect...

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.
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.  
 

Mor Ephrem

Hypatos
Staff member
Moderator
Joined
Oct 3, 2002
Messages
36,280
Reaction score
161
Points
63
Age
39
Location
New York!
Website
www.orthodoxchristianity.net
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.
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. 
 

ialmisry

Strategos
Joined
Aug 17, 2007
Messages
41,795
Reaction score
0
Points
36
Location
Chicago
Wandile said:
ialmisry said:
Wandile said:
Yurysprudentsiya said:
Wandile said:
Yurysprudentsiya said:
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.  
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 them
They are today.  
This is true only if circular reasoning is a valid argument.
"The Supreme Pontiff speaks infallibly when he speaks ex cathedra"

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. ::)
incorrect...

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?

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."
 

minasoliman

Stratopedarches
Staff member
Moderator
Joined
May 24, 2004
Messages
20,198
Reaction score
1
Points
0
Location
NJ
ialmisry said:
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".  ;)
Then the First one wouldn't be Ecumenical, as Pope St. Athanasius found out five times.
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.
 

Wandile

Archon
Joined
Nov 14, 2012
Messages
3,284
Reaction score
24
Points
38
Location
Johannesburg, South Africa
Mor Ephrem said:
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....
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)?  

Orthodox Rome knew how to unite, non-Orthodox Rome can and will only divide and conquer.  
I mean exactly what I've said in my OP. But some answers given aren't true to history so I'm questioning them...

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 ..
 

Wandile

Archon
Joined
Nov 14, 2012
Messages
3,284
Reaction score
24
Points
38
Location
Johannesburg, South Africa
Mor Ephrem said:
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.
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. 
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,

that's how we know
 

ialmisry

Strategos
Joined
Aug 17, 2007
Messages
41,795
Reaction score
0
Points
36
Location
Chicago
Wandile said:
Mor Ephrem said:
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....
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)?  

Orthodox Rome knew how to unite, non-Orthodox Rome can and will only divide and conquer.  
I mean exactly what I've said in my OP. But some answers given aren't true to history so I'm questioning them...
but the answers given which aren't true to history are the ones you are giving.
Wandile said:
Now I don't "Oriental orthodox bait"... I just refer to history...plain and simple. .
OK, Inquisitor Winston Smith.
 

Wandile

Archon
Joined
Nov 14, 2012
Messages
3,284
Reaction score
24
Points
38
Location
Johannesburg, South Africa
ialmisry said:
Wandile said:
ialmisry said:
Wandile said:
Yurysprudentsiya said:
Wandile said:
Yurysprudentsiya said:
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.  
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 them
They are today.  
This is true only if circular reasoning is a valid argument.
"The Supreme Pontiff speaks infallibly when he speaks ex cathedra"

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. ::)
incorrect...

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?

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."
when he writes as private theologian

just because we have criteria does not necessitate an accompanying list of past statements as all that is dogma revealed in the past is already known. So today maybe a list would be helpful but not necessary for  proclamations like immaculate conception and the assumption
 
Joined
Jul 6, 2011
Messages
2,737
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Wandile said:
Mor Ephrem said:
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....
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)?  

Orthodox Rome knew how to unite, non-Orthodox Rome can and will only divide and conquer.  
I mean exactly what I've said in my OP. But some answers given aren't true to history so I'm questioning them...

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 ..
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.
 

ialmisry

Strategos
Joined
Aug 17, 2007
Messages
41,795
Reaction score
0
Points
36
Location
Chicago
Wandile said:
Mor Ephrem said:
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.
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. 
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,

that's how we know
by repeating the mantra, over and over
 

Mor Ephrem

Hypatos
Staff member
Moderator
Joined
Oct 3, 2002
Messages
36,280
Reaction score
161
Points
63
Age
39
Location
New York!
Website
www.orthodoxchristianity.net
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.
Neither does Rome.

Now if you want contribute by answering the OP then go ahead ... But please, enough of this ..
Here is some homework.  
 

Wandile

Archon
Joined
Nov 14, 2012
Messages
3,284
Reaction score
24
Points
38
Location
Johannesburg, South Africa
ialmisry said:
Wandile said:
Mor Ephrem said:
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....
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)?  

Orthodox Rome knew how to unite, non-Orthodox Rome can and will only divide and conquer.  
I mean exactly what I've said in my OP. But some answers given aren't true to history so I'm questioning them...
but the answers given which aren't true to history are the ones you are giving.
Wandile said:
Now I don't "Oriental orthodox bait"... I just refer to history...plain and simple. .
OK, Inquisitor Winston Smith.
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 ecumenical
 

ialmisry

Strategos
Joined
Aug 17, 2007
Messages
41,795
Reaction score
0
Points
36
Location
Chicago
Wandile said:
when he writes as private theologian
I notice you had no answer to the other questions.

And when does he write as a private theologian?
 

Wandile

Archon
Joined
Nov 14, 2012
Messages
3,284
Reaction score
24
Points
38
Location
Johannesburg, South Africa
ialmisry said:
Wandile said:
Mor Ephrem said:
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.
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.  
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,

that's how we know
by repeating the mantra, over and over
lol because that's the answer ::) I can't make up new categories to let one know how a statement is ex cathedra or not
 

Iconodule

Hoplitarches
Joined
Jan 2, 2010
Messages
16,486
Reaction score
9
Points
38
Age
38
Location
PA, USA
ialmisry said:
If they were Faithful, they wouldn't reject the Council...  Like a gangrenous limb amputated as it was falling off.
Are you actually saying that the OO's are a gangrenous limb?
 
Top