• 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
41,796
Reaction score
3
Points
38
Location
Chicago
Wandile said:
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.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Weasel_word
No Orthodox, serious or not, should take an Ultramontanist as a guide as to what Orthodox theologians should teach.

Sorry, we don't share you clericalism.

Wandile said:
Thy recognize how Ahistorical the position is...
Tell the people at the "They" Institute that that is the position history demonstrates.
Wandile said:
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
splitting, are you.

Alexandrians were not all laity. And not all Alexandrians rejected the Council.
 

Wandile

Archon
Joined
Nov 14, 2012
Messages
3,290
Reaction score
24
Points
38
Location
Johannesburg, South Africa
ialmisry said:
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?
Have you ever heard of the books he publishes ? Like when Pope Emeritus Benedict XVI wrote private theological books and published those  books not as Pope Benedict, bishop of Rome but as Joseph Ratzinger the German theologian  
 

ialmisry

Strategos
Joined
Aug 17, 2007
Messages
41,796
Reaction score
3
Points
38
Location
Chicago
Wandile said:
ialmisry said:
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?
Have you ever heard of the books he publishes ? Like when Pope Emeritus Benedict XVI wrote private theological books and published those  books not as Pope Benedict, bishop of Rome but as Joseph Ratzinger the German theologian  
Does it have an imprimatur and nihil obstat?
 

ialmisry

Strategos
Joined
Aug 17, 2007
Messages
41,796
Reaction score
3
Points
38
Location
Chicago
Iconodule said:
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?
Nope. The fact that they are not, i.e. their Faith is shared by the Orthodox Chalcedonians-despite a 1,500+ split while the Chalcedonian Vatican's faith is not shared by the Orthodox Chaleconians-raises the question of why that tourniquet wound too tight still has a healthy limb, demanding that the tourniquet be removed.
 

ialmisry

Strategos
Joined
Aug 17, 2007
Messages
41,796
Reaction score
3
Points
38
Location
Chicago
Wandile said:
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
rote repetition does not knowledge make.
 

Mor Ephrem

Hypatos
Staff member
Moderator
Joined
Oct 3, 2002
Messages
36,301
Reaction score
181
Points
63
Age
39
Location
New York!
Website
www.orthodoxchristianity.net
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
And yet, you reject allegedly "circular" reasonings from the Orthodox...

Wandile, Ordinatio Sacerdotalis uses language that appears to have been modeled on Vatican I's requirements for an ex cathedra proclamation in order to satisfy them:

Although the teaching that priestly ordination is to be reserved to men alone has been preserved by the constant and universal Tradition of the Church and firmly taught by the Magisterium in its more recent documents, at the present time in some places it is nonetheless considered still open to debate, or the Church's judgment that women are not to be admitted to ordination is considered to have a merely disciplinary force.

Wherefore, in order that all doubt may be removed regarding a matter of great importance, a matter which pertains to the Church's divine constitution itself, in virtue of my ministry of confirming the brethren (cf. Lk 22:32) I declare that the Church has no authority whatsoever to confer priestly ordination on women and that this judgment is to be definitively held by all the Church's faithful.
And yet, Rome appears to reject the idea that this was an exercise of the extraordinary papal magisterium, but only a reiteration of the ordinary magisterium, while leaving open the possibility that it could be declared infallibly later, even if it's already infallible now:

A similar process can be observed in the more recent teaching regarding the doctrine that priestly ordination is reserved only to men. The Supreme Pontiff, while not wishing to proceed to a dogmatic definition, intended to reaffirm that this doctrine is to be held definitively, since, founded on the written Word of God, constantly preserved and applied in the Tradition of the Church, it has been set forth infallibly by the ordinary and universal Magisterium. As the prior example illustrates, this does not foreclose the possibility that, in the future, the consciousness of the Church might progress to the point where this teaching could be defined as a doctrine to be believed as divinely revealed.
IOW, "X is infallible when I say it's infallible".





 

Iconodule

Hoplitarches
Joined
Jan 2, 2010
Messages
16,486
Reaction score
10
Points
38
Age
38
Location
PA, USA
ialmisry said:
Iconodule said:
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?
Nope. The fact that they are not, i.e. their Faith is shared by the Orthodox Chalcedonians-despite a 1,500+ split while the Chalcedonian Vatican's faith is not shared by the Orthodox Chaleconians-raises the question of why that tourniquet wound too tight still has a healthy limb, demanding that the tourniquet be removed.
But you just said, "If they were Faithful, they wouldn't reject the Council." You say ecumenical councils are accepted by all the faithful... is Chalcedon ecumenical or not? Were the anti-Chalcedonians faithful or not?
 

Asteriktos

Strategos
Joined
Oct 4, 2002
Messages
39,563
Reaction score
313
Points
83
We'd all get along better if everyone would accept that all arguments, if you go down far enough, are based in circular reasoning and unfounded/unverifiable assumptions.

I will say that some of the answers to the OP I've found helpful though, which really isn't something I would say about most threads on this topic.
 
Joined
Jul 6, 2011
Messages
2,737
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Iconodule said:
ialmisry said:
Iconodule said:
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?
Nope. The fact that they are not, i.e. their Faith is shared by the Orthodox Chalcedonians-despite a 1,500+ split while the Chalcedonian Vatican's faith is not shared by the Orthodox Chaleconians-raises the question of why that tourniquet wound too tight still has a healthy limb, demanding that the tourniquet be removed.
But you just said, "If they were Faithful, they wouldn't reject the Council." You say ecumenical councils are accepted by all the faithful... is Chalcedon ecumenical or not? Were the anti-Chalcedonians faithful or not?
The position gaining traction is that the OOs rejected a misinterpretation of Chalcedon and Chalcedon condemned an imaginary picture of the OOs.  When the true picture of both sides is shown there is no problem.  
 

ialmisry

Strategos
Joined
Aug 17, 2007
Messages
41,796
Reaction score
3
Points
38
Location
Chicago
Iconodule said:
ialmisry said:
Iconodule said:
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?
Nope. The fact that they are not, i.e. their Faith is shared by the Orthodox Chalcedonians-despite a 1,500+ split while the Chalcedonian Vatican's faith is not shared by the Orthodox Chaleconians-raises the question of why that tourniquet wound too tight still has a healthy limb, demanding that the tourniquet be removed.
But you just said, "If they were Faithful, they wouldn't reject the Council." You say ecumenical councils are accepted by all the faithful... is Chalcedon ecumenical or not? Were the anti-Chalcedonians faithful or not?
Open a thread:
http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php/board,23.0.html
 

Mor Ephrem

Hypatos
Staff member
Moderator
Joined
Oct 3, 2002
Messages
36,301
Reaction score
181
Points
63
Age
39
Location
New York!
Website
www.orthodoxchristianity.net
Wandile said:
ialmisry said:
And when does he write as a private theologian?
Have you ever heard of the books he publishes ? Like when Pope Emeritus Benedict XVI wrote private theological books and published those  books not as Pope Benedict, bishop of Rome but as Joseph Ratzinger the German theologian  
Yeah, Popes always wrote as private theologians and so it wasn't a big deal with Pope Benedict did it.  It was just for the sake of one or two confused idiots that he had to specify in the preface to the first volume of Jesus of Nazareth that his book was "absolutely not a magisterial act", normal people would've known that instinctively.    
 

Iconodule

Hoplitarches
Joined
Jan 2, 2010
Messages
16,486
Reaction score
10
Points
38
Age
38
Location
PA, USA
ialmisry said:
Iconodule said:
ialmisry said:
Iconodule said:
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?
Nope. The fact that they are not, i.e. their Faith is shared by the Orthodox Chalcedonians-despite a 1,500+ split while the Chalcedonian Vatican's faith is not shared by the Orthodox Chaleconians-raises the question of why that tourniquet wound too tight still has a healthy limb, demanding that the tourniquet be removed.
But you just said, "If they were Faithful, they wouldn't reject the Council." You say ecumenical councils are accepted by all the faithful... is Chalcedon ecumenical or not? Were the anti-Chalcedonians faithful or not?
Open a thread:
http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php/board,23.0.html
Unnecessary. The specifics of the Chalcedon dispute, and who was right or wrong there, need not be brought up here. The argument at play here is that an ecumenical council is accepted by all the faithful. If there is a council which is both ecumenical and rejected by some of the faithful, whatever their reasons were for rejecting it, there is a hole that argument.
 

Iconodule

Hoplitarches
Joined
Jan 2, 2010
Messages
16,486
Reaction score
10
Points
38
Age
38
Location
PA, USA
Yurysprudentsiya said:
Iconodule said:
ialmisry said:
Iconodule said:
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?
Nope. The fact that they are not, i.e. their Faith is shared by the Orthodox Chalcedonians-despite a 1,500+ split while the Chalcedonian Vatican's faith is not shared by the Orthodox Chaleconians-raises the question of why that tourniquet wound too tight still has a healthy limb, demanding that the tourniquet be removed.
But you just said, "If they were Faithful, they wouldn't reject the Council." You say ecumenical councils are accepted by all the faithful... is Chalcedon ecumenical or not? Were the anti-Chalcedonians faithful or not?
The position gaining traction is that the OOs rejected a misinterpretation of Chalcedon and Chalcedon condemned an imaginary picture of the OOs.
I'm aware of that; the problem remains, if we A) consider a council ecumenical and B) admit that some of the faithful rejected that council, we can no longer argue that an ecumenical council is accepted by all the faithful.
 
Joined
Jul 6, 2011
Messages
2,737
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Iconodule said:
Yurysprudentsiya said:
Iconodule said:
ialmisry said:
Iconodule said:
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?
Nope. The fact that they are not, i.e. their Faith is shared by the Orthodox Chalcedonians-despite a 1,500+ split while the Chalcedonian Vatican's faith is not shared by the Orthodox Chaleconians-raises the question of why that tourniquet wound too tight still has a healthy limb, demanding that the tourniquet be removed.
But you just said, "If they were Faithful, they wouldn't reject the Council." You say ecumenical councils are accepted by all the faithful... is Chalcedon ecumenical or not? Were the anti-Chalcedonians faithful or not?
The position gaining traction is that the OOs rejected a misinterpretation of Chalcedon and Chalcedon condemned an imaginary picture of the OOs.
I'm aware of that; the problem remains, if we A) consider a council ecumenical and B) admit that some of the faithful rejected that council, we can no longer argue that an ecumenical council is accepted by all the faithful.

But they didn't reject it.  They rejected a caricature of it.  It sometimes takes hundreds or even thousands of years for stuff to become clear.  That's no big deal in Gods time.
 

Wandile

Archon
Joined
Nov 14, 2012
Messages
3,290
Reaction score
24
Points
38
Location
Johannesburg, South Africa
ialmisry said:
Wandile said:
ialmisry said:
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?
 
Have you ever heard of the books he publishes ? Like when Pope Emeritus Benedict XVI wrote private theological books and published those  books not as Pope Benedict, bishop of Rome but as Joseph Ratzinger the German theologian  
Does it have an imprimatur and nihil obstat?
Yes because he is still writing as a catholic theologian presenting catholic views
 

Iconodule

Hoplitarches
Joined
Jan 2, 2010
Messages
16,486
Reaction score
10
Points
38
Age
38
Location
PA, USA
Yurysprudentsiya said:
But they didn't reject it.  They rejected a caricature of it.  
So the argument now is that a council is ecumenical when all the faithful accept its substance, even if they might formally reject it? So theoretically, if the bishops hold a council and 90% of the faithful reject it, the bishops can just say, "It's still ecumenical, and you really do accept it, you just didn't understand it"? Perhaps the Catholics can say, "The Orthodox rejected a caricature of the Council of Florence, but they really accept it."

Just to be clear, I'm not here to support Wandile's arguments and I have no sympathy for Papal supremacy; I'm just pointing at holes where I see them.
 

Wandile

Archon
Joined
Nov 14, 2012
Messages
3,290
Reaction score
24
Points
38
Location
Johannesburg, South Africa
Mor Ephrem 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
And yet, you reject allegedly "circular" reasonings from the Orthodox...

Wandile, Ordinatio Sacerdotalis uses language that appears to have been modeled on Vatican I's requirements for an ex cathedra proclamation in order to satisfy them:

Although the teaching that priestly ordination is to be reserved to men alone has been preserved by the constant and universal Tradition of the Church and firmly taught by the Magisterium in its more recent documents, at the present time in some places it is nonetheless considered still open to debate, or the Church's judgment that women are not to be admitted to ordination is considered to have a merely disciplinary force.

Wherefore, in order that all doubt may be removed regarding a matter of great importance, a matter which pertains to the Church's divine constitution itself, in virtue of my ministry of confirming the brethren (cf. Lk 22:32) I declare that the Church has no authority whatsoever to confer priestly ordination on women and that this judgment is to be definitively held by all the Church's faithful.
And yet, Rome appears to reject the idea that this was an exercise of the extraordinary papal magisterium, but only a reiteration of the ordinary magisterium, while leaving open the possibility that it could be declared infallibly later, even if it's already infallible now:

A similar process can be observed in the more recent teaching regarding the doctrine that priestly ordination is reserved only to men. The Supreme Pontiff, while not wishing to proceed to a dogmatic definition, intended to reaffirm that this doctrine is to be held definitively, since, founded on the written Word of God, constantly preserved and applied in the Tradition of the Church, it has been set forth infallibly by the ordinary and universal Magisterium. As the prior example illustrates, this does not foreclose the possibility that, in the future, the consciousness of the Church might progress to the point where this teaching could be defined as a doctrine to be believed as divinely revealed.
IOW, "X is infallible when I say it's infallible".

I've read this post three times and no where can i see where it implies "its infallible when I say its infallible". You are reading your bias into the text Mor

The very text you quote clears up your confusion ???
 
Joined
Jul 6, 2011
Messages
2,737
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Iconodule said:
Yurysprudentsiya said:
But they didn't reject it.  They rejected a caricature of it.  
So the argument now is that a council is ecumenical when all the faithful accept its substance, even if they might formally reject it? So theoretically, if the bishops hold a council and 90% of the faithful reject it, the bishops can just say, "It's still ecumenical, and you really do accept it, you just didn't understand it"? Perhaps the Catholics can say, "The Orthodox rejected a caricature of the Council of Florence, but they really accept it."

Just to be clear, I'm not here to support Wandile's arguments and I have no sympathy for Papal supremacy; I'm just pointing at holes where I see them.
The bishops could in no wise make such an assertion.  The faithful themselves would have to do so.  All I'm saying is that it isn't like ratification of a constitutional amendment -- there is no set timeframe for acceptance.  Re Chalcedon, both EO and OO seem to be reaching that point.  When they do I don't think we and they will say that they finally recognized Chalcedon, instead that what they have recognized all along is, in fact, Chalcedon.
 

Iconodule

Hoplitarches
Joined
Jan 2, 2010
Messages
16,486
Reaction score
10
Points
38
Age
38
Location
PA, USA
Yurysprudentsiya said:
The bishops could in no wise make such an assertion.  
Why not? Are the bishops not part of the faithful? You have already allowed for a segment of the faithful (Chalcedonians) to declare a council ecumenical on behalf of everyone, why not an even smaller segment?

And let's be clear here: the OO's may eventually say they accept the teaching of Chalcedon in substance as it is currently taught by the EO, but the idea that their rejection was based on misinterpretation of the council is not going to fly with them any time soon.
 

Wandile

Archon
Joined
Nov 14, 2012
Messages
3,290
Reaction score
24
Points
38
Location
Johannesburg, South Africa
Mor this was taken from Orthodoxwiki :

"...theologians such as Fr. John S. Romanides have argued, however, that the councils universally regarded as ecumenical within the Orthodox Church seemed of themselves to have no sense of requiring a reception by the Church before they went into effect. Their texts do indeed include self-declarations of their ecumenicity, and in most cases, their decrees immediately were written into Roman imperial law. No condition of later reception is reflected in the councils' texts.

Further, the question of when exactly one may say that the Church has received or rejected a council is not answerable by receptionist theory. Another ecclesiological problem is also created by receptionism: Why is it, for instance, that the Fourth Ecumenical Council may be said to have been "received by the whole Church" while significant numbers of Christians apparently within the Church rejected it, leading to the schism which even now persists? Such reasoning is circular, because whoever accepts a council is therefore inside the Church, but any who reject it are outside In other words, such councils are ecumenical essentially because those who hold to their decrees declare themselves exclusively to be the Church"

http://orthodoxwiki.org/Ecumenical_Councils
 
Joined
Jul 6, 2011
Messages
2,737
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Iconodule said:
Yurysprudentsiya said:
The bishops could in no wise make such an assertion.  
Why not? Are the bishops not part of the faithful? You have already allowed for a segment of the faithful (Chalcedonians) to declare a council ecumenical on behalf of everyone, why not an even smaller segment?

And let's be clear here: the OO's may eventually say they accept the teaching of Chalcedon in substance as it is currently taught by the EO, but the idea that their rejection was based on misinterpretation of the council is not going to fly with them any time soon.
They don't declare anything.  Some may recognize it ahead of others.  I think that it is too much to impose chronological limitations on what is essentially a mystery (the working of the Holy Spirit in a council). 
 

Iconodule

Hoplitarches
Joined
Jan 2, 2010
Messages
16,486
Reaction score
10
Points
38
Age
38
Location
PA, USA
Yurysprudentsiya said:
Iconodule said:
Yurysprudentsiya said:
The bishops could in no wise make such an assertion.  
Why not? Are the bishops not part of the faithful? You have already allowed for a segment of the faithful (Chalcedonians) to declare a council ecumenical on behalf of everyone, why not an even smaller segment?

And let's be clear here: the OO's may eventually say they accept the teaching of Chalcedon in substance as it is currently taught by the EO, but the idea that their rejection was based on misinterpretation of the council is not going to fly with them any time soon.
They don't declare anything. 
We have been declaring Chalcedon to be the 4th ecumenical council for 1500 years. Are we wrong to do so? How do we know it is ecumenical?
 
Joined
Jul 6, 2011
Messages
2,737
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Iconodule said:
Yurysprudentsiya said:
Iconodule said:
Yurysprudentsiya said:
The bishops could in no wise make such an assertion.  
Why not? Are the bishops not part of the faithful? You have already allowed for a segment of the faithful (Chalcedonians) to declare a council ecumenical on behalf of everyone, why not an even smaller segment?

And let's be clear here: the OO's may eventually say they accept the teaching of Chalcedon in substance as it is currently taught by the EO, but the idea that their rejection was based on misinterpretation of the council is not going to fly with them any time soon.
They don't declare anything. 
We have been declaring Chalcedon to be the 4th ecumenical council for 1500 years. Are we wrong to do so? How do we know it is ecumenical?
It is better to say that the churches in communion with the EP (and the Romans) recognize this.  The OOs have adhered to it as well, and we and they are now recognizing that. 
 
Joined
Jul 6, 2011
Messages
2,737
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Yurysprudentsiya said:
Iconodule said:
Yurysprudentsiya said:
Iconodule said:
Yurysprudentsiya said:
The bishops could in no wise make such an assertion.  
Why not? Are the bishops not part of the faithful? You have already allowed for a segment of the faithful (Chalcedonians) to declare a council ecumenical on behalf of everyone, why not an even smaller segment?

And let's be clear here: the OO's may eventually say they accept the teaching of Chalcedon in substance as it is currently taught by the EO, but the idea that their rejection was based on misinterpretation of the council is not going to fly with them any time soon.
They don't declare anything. 
We have been declaring Chalcedon to be the 4th ecumenical council for 1500 years. Are we wrong to do so? How do we know it is ecumenical?
It is better to say that the churches in communion with the EP (and the Romans) recognize this.  The OOs have adhered to it as well, and we and they are now recognizing that. 
I don't know why you are trying to put a legal interpretation on this.  To me that is no more useful than trying to determine the exact moment that the Eucharist becomes Christs body and blood.  Either people believe it or they don't. 
 

Iconodule

Hoplitarches
Joined
Jan 2, 2010
Messages
16,486
Reaction score
10
Points
38
Age
38
Location
PA, USA
Yurysprudentsiya said:
I don't know why you are trying to put a legal interpretation on this.  
So, when someone points out a hole in your logic, accuse him of legalism. Gotcha.
Excuse me buddy, I'm not the one claiming that we know a council is ecumenical when all the faithful accept it. Answer the question: How do we know a council is ecumenical? If you want to say "Either people believe it or they don't," fine, but that is not the argument that ialmisry was making and which you were, until about a minute ago, defending.
 
Joined
Jul 6, 2011
Messages
2,737
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Iconodule said:
Yurysprudentsiya said:
I don't know why you are trying to put a legal interpretation on this.  
So, when someone points out a hole in your logic, accuse him of legalism. Gotcha.
Excuse me buddy, I'm not the one claiming that we know a council is ecumenical when all the faithful accept it. Answer the question: How do we know a council is ecumenical? If you want to say "Either people believe it or they don't," fine, but that is not the argument that ialmisry was making and which you were, until about a minute ago, defending.
I don't think that the mysteries of the church were susceptible to a microscope.  Yes, either you gelid be it or you don't.  I'm pointing out a way by which the EO and OO can reunite as I in faith believe they should, they having one faith, and by which neither could lose face.  Your hypothetical is just that and one which, again by faith, I don't believe the Holy Spirit would permit. Big it is accepted, it must be ecumenical.  If it is ecumenical, it must be accepted.  
 

ialmisry

Strategos
Joined
Aug 17, 2007
Messages
41,796
Reaction score
3
Points
38
Location
Chicago
Cyrillic said:
Wandile said:
Their texts do indeed include self-declarations of their ecumenicity
Not in all cases.
And plenty of those which claimed to be Ecumenical (e.g. the council of the iconoclasts) are not.
 

ialmisry

Strategos
Joined
Aug 17, 2007
Messages
41,796
Reaction score
3
Points
38
Location
Chicago
Wandile said:
ialmisry said:
Wandile said:
ialmisry said:
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?
 
Have you ever heard of the books he publishes ? Like when Pope Emeritus Benedict XVI wrote private theological books and published those  books not as Pope Benedict, bishop of Rome but as Joseph Ratzinger the German theologian  
Does it have an imprimatur and nihil obstat?
Yes because he is still writing as a catholic theologian presenting catholic views
who issues it?
 
Joined
Jul 6, 2011
Messages
2,737
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Iconodule said:
Yurysprudentsiya said:
I don't know why you are trying to put a legal interpretation on this.  
So, when someone points out a hole in your logic, accuse him of legalism. Gotcha.
Excuse me buddy, I'm not the one claiming that we know a council is ecumenical when all the faithful accept it. Answer the question: How do we know a council is ecumenical? If you want to say "Either people believe it or they don't," fine, but that is not the argument that ialmisry was making and which you were, until about a minute ago, defending.
My argument is that the OOs haven't rejected Chalcedon.  They haven't formally accepted it yet, but they will. They have lived in accordance with its teachings for 1500 years.  We and they realize that now.  What's so hard about that?  Must it come together in a neat package on your lifetime? 
 

ialmisry

Strategos
Joined
Aug 17, 2007
Messages
41,796
Reaction score
3
Points
38
Location
Chicago
Iconodule said:
ialmisry said:
Iconodule said:
ialmisry said:
Iconodule said:
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?
Nope. The fact that they are not, i.e. their Faith is shared by the Orthodox Chalcedonians-despite a 1,500+ split while the Chalcedonian Vatican's faith is not shared by the Orthodox Chaleconians-raises the question of why that tourniquet wound too tight still has a healthy limb, demanding that the tourniquet be removed.
But you just said, "If they were Faithful, they wouldn't reject the Council." You say ecumenical councils are accepted by all the faithful... is Chalcedon ecumenical or not? Were the anti-Chalcedonians faithful or not?
Open a thread:
http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php/board,23.0.html
Unnecessary. The specifics of the Chalcedon dispute, and who was right or wrong there, need not be brought up here. The argument at play here is that an ecumenical council is accepted by all the faithful. If there is a council which is both ecumenical and rejected by some of the faithful, whatever their reasons were for rejecting it, there is a hole that argument.
yes, necessary, as the specifics of the Chalcedon dispute you refer to here hold that both were right.
 

Iconodule

Hoplitarches
Joined
Jan 2, 2010
Messages
16,486
Reaction score
10
Points
38
Age
38
Location
PA, USA
Yurysprudentsiya said:
Iconodule said:
Yurysprudentsiya said:
I don't know why you are trying to put a legal interpretation on this.  
So, when someone points out a hole in your logic, accuse him of legalism. Gotcha.
Excuse me buddy, I'm not the one claiming that we know a council is ecumenical when all the faithful accept it. Answer the question: How do we know a council is ecumenical? If you want to say "Either people believe it or they don't," fine, but that is not the argument that ialmisry was making and which you were, until about a minute ago, defending.
My argument is that the OOs haven't rejected Chalcedon.  They haven't formally accepted it yet, but they will. They have lived in accordance with its teachings for 1500 years.
I have already pointed out why that makes no sense.

We and they realize that now.  
We have several OO right here on this forum. Ask any one of them if he or his bishop agrees with you that they fundamentally accept Chalcedon. The answer you get will likely be much more complex than your narrative allows.
 

Iconodule

Hoplitarches
Joined
Jan 2, 2010
Messages
16,486
Reaction score
10
Points
38
Age
38
Location
PA, USA
ialmisry said:
Iconodule said:
ialmisry said:
Iconodule said:
ialmisry said:
Iconodule said:
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?
Nope. The fact that they are not, i.e. their Faith is shared by the Orthodox Chalcedonians-despite a 1,500+ split while the Chalcedonian Vatican's faith is not shared by the Orthodox Chaleconians-raises the question of why that tourniquet wound too tight still has a healthy limb, demanding that the tourniquet be removed.
But you just said, "If they were Faithful, they wouldn't reject the Council." You say ecumenical councils are accepted by all the faithful... is Chalcedon ecumenical or not? Were the anti-Chalcedonians faithful or not?
Open a thread:
http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php/board,23.0.html
Unnecessary. The specifics of the Chalcedon dispute, and who was right or wrong there, need not be brought up here. The argument at play here is that an ecumenical council is accepted by all the faithful. If there is a council which is both ecumenical and rejected by some of the faithful, whatever their reasons were for rejecting it, there is a hole that argument.
yes, necessary, as the specifics of the Chalcedon dispute you refer to here hold that both were right.
If you mean that both still held to orthodox doctrine, that is a different question from whether it was right to reject the council.

Again, your argument: we know a council is ecumenical because all the faithful accept it.

The fact that one of the ecumenical councils was rejected by a large portion of the faithful puts a massive hole in this argument.

No need for specifics- that's the hole right there.
 

Mor Ephrem

Hypatos
Staff member
Moderator
Joined
Oct 3, 2002
Messages
36,301
Reaction score
181
Points
63
Age
39
Location
New York!
Website
www.orthodoxchristianity.net
Wandile said:
I've read this post three times and no where can i see where it implies "its infallible when I say its infallible". You are reading your bias into the text Mor
Or you are reading yours into the text.

The very text you quote clears up your confusion ???
I referred to several texts.  Maybe that was the problem.  So let's do this step by step.  

Wandile, is Ordinatio Sacerdotalis an ex cathedra declaration?  Why or why not?
 
Joined
Jul 6, 2011
Messages
2,737
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Iconodule said:
Yurysprudentsiya said:
Iconodule said:
Yurysprudentsiya said:
I don't know why you are trying to put a legal interpretation on this.  
So, when someone points out a hole in your logic, accuse him of legalism. Gotcha.
Excuse me buddy, I'm not the one claiming that we know a council is ecumenical when all the faithful accept it. Answer the question: How do we know a council is ecumenical? If you want to say "Either people believe it or they don't," fine, but that is not the argument that ialmisry was making and which you were, until about a minute ago, defending.
My argument is that the OOs haven't rejected Chalcedon.  They haven't formally accepted it yet, but they will. They have lived in accordance with its teachings for 1500 years.
I have already pointed out why that makes no sense.

We and they realize that now.  
We have several OO right here on this forum. Ask any one of them if he or his bishop agrees with you that they fundamentally accept Chalcedon. The answer you get will likely be much more complex than your narrative allows.
I have faith that, in time, they will say that what they believe is in entire accord with what Chalcedon teaches.  I believe that it already is.  This is why I consider them Orthodox and lament the break in communion.  If such were the case now, of course, there would be no schism.  
 
Joined
Jul 6, 2011
Messages
2,737
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Iconodule said:
ialmisry said:
Iconodule said:
ialmisry said:
Iconodule said:
ialmisry said:
Iconodule said:
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?
Nope. The fact that they are not, i.e. their Faith is shared by the Orthodox Chalcedonians-despite a 1,500+ split while the Chalcedonian Vatican's faith is not shared by the Orthodox Chaleconians-raises the question of why that tourniquet wound too tight still has a healthy limb, demanding that the tourniquet be removed.
But you just said, "If they were Faithful, they wouldn't reject the Council." You say ecumenical councils are accepted by all the faithful... is Chalcedon ecumenical or not? Were the anti-Chalcedonians faithful or not?
Open a thread:
http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php/board,23.0.html
Unnecessary. The specifics of the Chalcedon dispute, and who was right or wrong there, need not be brought up here. The argument at play here is that an ecumenical council is accepted by all the faithful. If there is a council which is both ecumenical and rejected by some of the faithful, whatever their reasons were for rejecting it, there is a hole that argument.
yes, necessary, as the specifics of the Chalcedon dispute you refer to here hold that both were right.
If you mean that both still held to orthodox doctrine, that is a different question from whether it was right to reject the council.

Again, your argument: we know a council is ecumenical because all the faithful accept it.

The fact that one of the ecumenical councils was rejected by a large portion of the faithful puts a massive hole in this argument.

No need for specifics- that's the hole right there.
From what I know of their faith, I don't believe that they rejected it.  They rejected something else, which was probably a good thing as I understand that the form was cloaked in imperialism. 
 

Iconodule

Hoplitarches
Joined
Jan 2, 2010
Messages
16,486
Reaction score
10
Points
38
Age
38
Location
PA, USA
Yurysprudentsiya said:
I have faith that, in time, they will say that what they believe is in entire accord with what Chalcedon teaches.  
Again your argument, or at least the argument you were defending, is this: A council is ecumenical when all the faithful accept it. Such a definition is meaningless and useless if we can say to anyone who rejects the council, "Your rejection is based on misunderstanding; you really accept it; therefore it is ecumenical."
 

Iconodule

Hoplitarches
Joined
Jan 2, 2010
Messages
16,486
Reaction score
10
Points
38
Age
38
Location
PA, USA
Yurysprudentsiya said:
From what I know of their faith, I don't believe that they rejected it.  They rejected something else, which was probably a good thing as I understand that the form was cloaked in imperialism. 
What you are saying is that their rejection of Chalcedon stems from ignorance on their part and on the part of their fathers. Good luck getting them to agree with you.
 
Joined
Jul 6, 2011
Messages
2,737
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Iconodule said:
Yurysprudentsiya said:
From what I know of their faith, I don't believe that they rejected it.  They rejected something else, which was probably a good thing as I understand that the form was cloaked in imperialism. 
What you are saying is that their rejection of Chalcedon stems from ignorance on their part and on the part of their fathers. Good luck getting them to agree with you.
And on the part of our fathers who believed some to be holding to errors which they did not.  It goes both ways. 
 

ialmisry

Strategos
Joined
Aug 17, 2007
Messages
41,796
Reaction score
3
Points
38
Location
Chicago
Iconodule said:
ialmisry said:
Iconodule said:
ialmisry said:
Iconodule said:
ialmisry said:
Iconodule said:
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?
Nope. The fact that they are not, i.e. their Faith is shared by the Orthodox Chalcedonians-despite a 1,500+ split while the Chalcedonian Vatican's faith is not shared by the Orthodox Chaleconians-raises the question of why that tourniquet wound too tight still has a healthy limb, demanding that the tourniquet be removed.
But you just said, "If they were Faithful, they wouldn't reject the Council." You say ecumenical councils are accepted by all the faithful... is Chalcedon ecumenical or not? Were the anti-Chalcedonians faithful or not?
Open a thread:
http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php/board,23.0.html
Unnecessary. The specifics of the Chalcedon dispute, and who was right or wrong there, need not be brought up here. The argument at play here is that an ecumenical council is accepted by all the faithful. If there is a council which is both ecumenical and rejected by some of the faithful, whatever their reasons were for rejecting it, there is a hole that argument.
yes, necessary, as the specifics of the Chalcedon dispute you refer to here hold that both were right.
If you mean that both still held to orthodox doctrine, that is a different question from whether it was right to reject the council.

Again, your argument: we know a council is ecumenical because all the faithful accept it.

The fact that one of the ecumenical councils was rejected by a large portion of the faithful puts a massive hole in this argument.

No need for specifics- that's the hole right there.
Since that "hole" occurred in all the Ecumenical Councils except, in some respects, the Second, discussing the issue of the hole in Chalcedon would require discussion of the specifics of Chalcedon.  We have a place for that:
http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php/board,37.0.html

Now, if you want to discuss the issue of the hole in the Fifth Ecumenical Council, and the Three Chapter Schism
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Three_Chapter_schism
that's a different issue.  I don't think the board has any specific rules on a specific fora for that debate.
 
Top