EO and the supreme authority of church-consciousness? What about OO?

[QuantaCura]

I have been told by Eastern Orthodox individuals that Councils and whatnot are not authoritative in and of themselves, but rather must be accepted by the "church-consciousness." The Church as a whole approves or rejects a council. A Council of bishops, even all the bishops of the world, cannot bind the Church as a whole without their teaching being first approved by the church-consciousness (which is not really defined, as to when something is received--as there is always dissenters--and how long one must wait to judge a Council received or not). For example, an EO person would say the Councils of Florence and Lyons II were rejected by the church-consciousness, while other Councils, like Nicea I and Ephesus were accepted.

Now, that brings me to the point of confusion. For example, the Oriental Orthodox can claim their church-consciousness did not accept the teaching of St. Leo the Great and the Council of Chalcedon. In that instance, we see part of the church-consciousness rejecting a teaching and a part receiving it, leading to a sad schism. Both sides support their position with the early Church Fathers and Scriptures.

So, how do we determine which church-consciousness is correct? Do we look at the majority? But if we look at majority, more people ended up receiving, say Florence and Lyons II, than rejecting it. Is it just purely subjective? Is there an objective standard of orthodoxy?

[Lotar]

Ah, an interesting question indeed.

The issue of Councils and which are ecumenical has a long history of being somewhat open to controversy. It took time for the 7th to be enumerated among the ECs, even in the Latin west, such as among the Franks. Even while we were in and out of schism for 2-5 centuries, we accepted different councils as ecumenical; those surrounding St. Photius the Great most specifically.

There is no formal process through which a council is accounted among the ECs, it is just a matter of it being recognized as so by the Church, and so it can only be recognized in time. Specifically, the standard by which an Ecumenical Council is considered an Ecumenical Council is the Church recognizing it as so.

So, the argument of what qualifies to be an Ecumenical Council does not factor into Orthodox apologetics, simply because we believe the councils are ecumenical because we believe the Church, not the other way around.

Thus, what we normally call Ecumenical are the 7 ancient Councils, Photius' councils, the Palomite Councils, and the Jerusalem Synod.

[minasoliman]

"Ecumenicity" is debatable. One must define "ecumenical." The debate then continues then what is "ecumenical." I think in all fairness, we have to differentiate between ecumenical as in "it was accepted worldwide" and ecumenical as "it should be accepted worldwide." One can without a doubt say that the first two ecumenical councils eventually was received worldwide, but debate comes into the importance of Ephesus and the rest, and in the debate between OO's and everyone else, Ephesus is never disputed, so it's not questioned that much. We will expect however a new generation of Assyrian Christians who might challenge Ephesus for all of us.

Another question one asks is if faith is Orthodox even without accepting the council, then which is more important? To accept faith or to accept the council with the faith?

Practically, I'd like for you to ask the majority of practicing Catholics or Orthodox and see if they know all the councils. For one thing, as an OO, I had to teach a fellow EO who's my age about his seven councils. He didn't even know what the first three were, which we hold in common.

But, if you ask him about the faith, he will believe in the Trinity, in Christ as fully God and fully human, in the Holy Spirit's divinity, in the fullness of Christ's humanity, which includes energy, operation, and will, as well as the divinity, in the Nicene Creed, in the veneration of Icons, in the sacraments, the Eucharist, the priesthood, in the One, Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church.

He knows all these things without the councils, then is "conciliar fundamentalism" really that crucial?

A word on the Assyrian Christians: since for OO's we stress faith more, then we question the Assyrian Christians' faith, not the exclusion of accepting Ephesus. In other words, when we ask "why they rejected Ephesus," we as Copts claim they never misunderstood and were indeed heretical. Nevertheless, I personally haven't engaged in discussion with them.

God bless.

[Lotar]

Yes, rather like the fact that it does not matter to us if the OT canon varies from jurisdiction to jurisdiction. The ECs are fences and guideposts for the faithful, to keep them in the Church and on the path to salvation, they are not ends in and of themselves.

[zhilan]

"Ecumenicity" is debatable. One must define "ecumenical." The debate then continues then what is "ecumenical." I think in all fairness, we have to differentiate between ecumenical as in "it was accepted worldwide" and ecumenical as "it should be accepted worldwide." One can without a doubt say that the first two ecumenical councils eventually was received worldwide, but debate comes into the importance of Ephesus and the rest, and in the debate between OO's and everyone else, Ephesus is never disputed, so it's not questioned that much. We will expect however a new generation of Assyrian Christians who might challenge Ephesus for all of us.

Another question one asks is if faith is Orthodox even without accepting the council, then which is more important? To accept faith or to accept the council with the faith?

Practically, I'd like for you to ask the majority of practicing Catholics or Orthodox and see if they know all the councils. For one thing, as an OO, I had to teach a fellow EO who's my age about his seven councils. He didn't even know what the first three were, which we hold in common.

But, if you ask him about the faith, he will believe in the Trinity, in Christ as fully God and fully human, in the Holy Spirit's divinity, in the fullness of Christ's humanity, which includes energy, operation, and will, as well as the divinity, in the Nicene Creed, in the veneration of Icons, in the sacraments, the Eucharist, the priesthood, in the One, Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church.

He knows all these things without the councils, then is "conciliar fundamentalism" really that crucial?

A word on the Assyrian Christians: since for OO's we stress faith more, then we question the Assyrian Christians' faith, not the exclusion of accepting Ephesus. In other words, when we ask "why they rejected Ephesus," we as Copts claim they never misunderstood and were indeed heretical. Nevertheless, I personally haven't engaged in discussion with them.

God bless.

:thumbsup: Mina always makes great posts.

[a_ntv]

A word on the Assyrian Christians: since for OO's we stress faith more, then we question the Assyrian Christians' faith, not the exclusion of accepting Ephesus. In other words, when we ask "why they rejected Ephesus," we as Copts claim they never misunderstood and were indeed heretical. Nevertheless, I personally haven't engaged in discussion with them.


Please take in mind that the Assyrians Christians never partecipated to the councils, not to the Nicean one, not to the Ephesus one.
Acutally the first councils were organized by the Bizantine Emperator who invites the bishops of his Empire. Assyrian were out and they were never invited.
Later, when asked, thay simply accepted the statments of these two councils, even if they said that the statments were bad-written (actually the statmenets were witten according the Greek philosophy and with the Greek language, while they still had a semitic mind speaking Syriac)

This actually shall lead us to the historical evidence that no Ecumenical Council was universal.
The famous seven Ecumenical Councils, so present in the lists of the EO, were simply local councils of their country.
The councils, both ecumenical and local, were/are simply one of the way the Holy Spirit helps the Church, and as the Fathers of the Church, they shall be taken in the whole, not considering each sentence as dogmatic.

The sign of unity in the faith is the Pope, as Peter was speaker of the apostoles, not the councils, nor the criteria of consciouness that simply means that who won is right

[minasoliman]

Dear a_ntv,

In any case, I do get the idea that the Assyrians and the ancient Christians of the Far East eventually did accept Nicea and Constantinople. Perhaps, we can be more open-minded to understand as to how and why they accepted those two, but later adamantly and rather quickly rejected Ephesus. But at the same time, if Nicea and Constantinople were eventually accepted, then doesn't that, by your definition, make them "ecumenical?"

I would have to disagree with you on your belief that the "sign of unity is the Pope." Like I implied, the sign of unity is faith and Orthodoxy. St. Peter, although above all disciples, was not "Petra" alone, but on account of his statement of faith, "You are the Christ, the Son of the Living God." We are all "Petras" in this manner, which our Spirit-inspired bishops holding the keys of heaven with the Apostles and St. Peter profess and teach for and on our behalf.

We also have to understand that the Pope of Rome, as it stands, believes in things which we as Orthodox would consider heretical. It would be even harder for us to consider him as a sign of unity.

God bless.

[minasoliman]

Yes, rather like the fact that it does not matter to us if the OT canon varies from jurisdiction to jurisdiction. The ECs are fences and guideposts for the faithful, to keep them in the Church and on the path to salvation, they are not ends in and of themselves.I would see that as inconsistency. Why not hold to Biblical literalism and canonical fundamentalism of the councils, and yet still have to hold that there "must" be seven ecumenical councils? Even St. Cyril did not force Ephesus on John of Antioch in their famous agreement together, but considered his faith enough as if it was an acceptance of Ephesus itself.

The councils are important, don't get me wrong. But not everyone will live and die knowing the councils. Let's be practical and realistic here. The faith always existed before the councils, and never were "brought into existence" afterwards. These councils were brought together to fight heresy, not to provide us with a catechism.

God bless.

[a_ntv]

In any case, I do get the idea that the Assyrians and the ancient Christians of the Far East eventually did accept Nicea and Constantinople. Perhaps, we can be more open-minded to understand as to how and why they accepted those two, but later adamantly and rather quickly rejected Ephesus. But at the same time, if Nicea and Constantinople were eventually accepted, then doesn't that, by your definition, make them "ecumenical?"

A part form a study of the Assyrians faith (a very interesting doctrine), I wanted simply to point out that the "ecumenical councils" are not MAGIC events, and their definitions are NOT faxed by the Heaven.

And I pointed out that there is not a defined line between the Ecumenical Councils and the Local Councils, as there is not a defined list of the Fathers of the Church.
The Catholic Church doesNOT keep any official list of the Ecumenical Councils.

Many very important doctrine, like the male-only-bishops and priests, have been never listed in the councils, but are anyway held by old the (first millennium) apostolic churches.

The faith is before the councils, not after them.


I would have to disagree with you on your belief that the "sign of unity is the Pope." Like I implied, the sign of unity is faith and Orthodoxy.
Well, I'catholic (even if I love OOs). The pope never moved from the true faith even when almost all the world went in the wrong direction. Think to the Arianism, when the Eastern bishops were almost all Arians, or think to the Iconostasis crisis.
And also nowadays, when the majority of the christians would allow divorce and contraception, the pope stays on the right positions.
To understand the respect we have for the pope, you shall consider the respect you have for your Pope (Shenouda III). It is not that the pope is a magic person, but he (well, his mministry) is the compass for our faith in order we can look in the right direction, because God loves his Church.
But there are many other thread for this issue

[Macarius]

As a tangental but related topic for discussion:

Why does the process for calling a council ecumenical or a doctrine universal - why does the formulation of doctrine - have to be systematic, formulaic, repeatable, categorized, or in any way containable by the human brain?

[WarriorAngel]

As a tangental but related topic for discussion:

Why does the process for calling a council ecumenical or a doctrine universal - why does the formulation of doctrine - have to be systematic, formulaic, repeatable, categorized, or in any way containable by the human brain?

Heresies. They are repeated to fight heresies. If this is what you are asking?

[minasoliman]

Think to the Arianism, when the Eastern bishops were almost all Arians, or think to the Iconostasis crisis.

It is well known in the history of the Church that St. Athanasius stood "contra mundum" against the whole world. With your thinking then, everyone must bow before Alexandria as the sole Pope of the world, since St. Athanasius saved the world from Arianism.

The OO's were never involved in the Iconoclastic developments. In fact, we never had problems with Iconoclasts. We always venerated icons without any challenge. The Pope of Rome was not alone. But I also wonder, from an EO perspective. Wasn't St. John of Damascus considered the hero of the Iconoclastic movement?

The pope never moved from the true faith even when almost all the world went in the wrong direction.

This is also where we disagree.

God bless.

[Macarius]

Heresies. They are repeated to fight heresies. If this is what you are asking?
No, I'm saying, we know what our tradition is. Why do we have to have a formulaic and infallible way for updating or confirming that tradition (for example, appeal to a council).

If an Arian came up to me and presented me with 12 councils of 500 bishops that supported his view, and 300 prooftexts from scripture and 5000 prooftexts from the fathers and 70 bulls from the popes, he would still be a heretic, no? Because truth is truth, and Holy Tradition is Holy Tradition.

It seems like we seek a hook to toss our hat on to so we can win arguments, but I'm just not sure that, outside of catechizing people, that the Church was meant to have an "infallbility" switch.

[WarriorAngel]

No, I'm saying, we know what our tradition is. Why do we have to have a formulaic and infallible way for updating or confirming that tradition (for example, appeal to a council).

If an Arian came up to me and presented me with 12 councils of 500 bishops that supported his view, and 300 prooftexts from scripture and 5000 prooftexts from the fathers and 70 bulls from the popes, he would still be a heretic, no? Because truth is truth, and Holy Tradition is Holy Tradition.

It seems like we seek a hook to toss our hat on to so we can win arguments, but I'm just not sure that, outside of catechizing people, that the Church was meant to have an "infallbility" switch.

If we never needed an update to proclaim what is heresy and what is not, and defining the terms, then we should never have needed a single council, then scripture would suffice.

But it is because of heresies that councils were ordered.
It was because of lack of proclaiming and defining scriptures, that councils existed.

See what I mean?

It is due to inordinate ideas stemming from 'misinterpretations' that the Apostles, the ECF's and the councils had to write and define their arguments...and make proclamations of what is and is not.

That does not change because ppl think it should. It continues onward because ppl can and will always misunderstand without updating the concepts and language to fit the generations.

Certainly we do not speak the same as the Apostles, and why the Apostles didnt speak the same as the OT Prophets.
This is why they were taught, and why Peter said those who wrest the OT [scriptures] do so to their own destruction.

So if they can misconstrue the OT and the Epistles of Paul...Peter is evidently giving us a few examples of what the future would hold.

Defining and clarifying as an authority over scriptures and Tradition to meet the needs of the times.

Does this help to understand where the defining of theology has always come from.

Borne of necessity, not recreation.
o

[Macarius]

If we never needed an update to proclaim what is heresy and what is not, and defining the terms, then we should never have needed a single council, then scripture would suffice.

Oh I understand historically where doctrinal crystalization has come from and why it has been necessary. I fully agree that when a heresy springs up from within the church that the bishops should meet to discuss the matter and pass a binding solution.

Those "solutions" though are hardly infallible on their own right. They are infallible only in so far as they proclaim the truth. There have been countless "false" councils that failed to be true to the tradition of the church and were rightly rejected.

It is rather easy to observe from history that at times the Holy Spirit has chosen to act through council, at times through an individual bishop (Athansius or Leo the Great, for example) sometimes in combination. At times the Popes were used (along with Athansius during the Arian crises, again, with the exception of Honorius, during the Monothelite crises, and again during the iconclastic crises). At times the councils trumped the papacy's wishes (Vigilus and the 5th council, the Photian schism).

Ultimately, though, it all goes back to the canon of apostolic revelation. All things are decided by that criteria: Christ is the Incarnate God, distinct from the Father but co-equal and one with Him, as the Holy Spirit is distinct but without separation, one as God. Incarnation and Trinity. And because God is one, the Church is one, and we trust the Holy Spirit to guide it.

That's the revelation. All the councils, all the pope's bulls... they all impact back to and are compared to that revelation.

I don't think we need to limit the Holy Spirit's guidance into a little box comprehensible to human beings. Instead, we need to focus on prayer, on growing closer to God through this revelation and within the life this revelation gave to us - this Word of the Cross where the God of life was revealed in death and resurrection for the salvation of the World.

That's it - that's my whole point. This polemical desire to be "right" and to prove others "wrong" by using our "infallibility switch" (whether that be the papacy or an ecumenical council or a proof text of scripture or from the fathers) is, to me, human pride. Pride I am often guilty of but seek, as I grow into the Eastern mindset, to reject.

Those things (the writings of holy popes, true synods, the fathers, and certainly scripture) can be used to elucidate the truth, to further our meditation on it, to explain why we disagree with heresies (or more accurately how we have historically done so). They are, however, ineffective on their own of "convincing" others of our "right-ness." So if the question is "how then do we persuade heretics to repent?" The answer is "by offering our explanation, recognizing how thin it is given our own fallibility, and then by prayer and persistent love - by demonstrating the faith."

These historical devices are useful for confirming that the truth has always been preached within the church - which (like the OT shows us God's faithfulness to Israel) gives us confidence of God's faithfulness to the Church and aids our faith. When a protestant tells me I am wrong to believe the Eucharist is the body and blood, I understand his perspective but have confidence in my own. So they have use. They give us bounds which we are to stay within in obedience and humility. So there's that as well.

Here's where I may get a bit confusing though, so let me know if this makes no sense whatsoever:

We are not to apply that to other people unless they are in the process of schisming from the church. Otherwise we are to be agnostic towards them - hopeful of God's continued action in their life but withholding all judgment of them. I apply the understanding of the 7 councils to myself in obedience to my bishop and the college of bishops within our communion. I will, if asked, encourage anyone to do the same. I do not use them as an "ecumenical bludgeon" to coin a phrase - that's beyond me to do, though a bishop has that right, I believe, by his appointment to teach and lead.

In particular, though, and this I think even a bishop ought not to do, I do not systematize it. I don't say "if X happens then X is infallible." For example, "If Scripture says X, X is true" because this depends on so many human elements (the critical text selected, the translation, my human understanding of the passage, the historical context - a speculative human assesment in itself - etc etc). Another example, "If 200+ bishops from all 5 patriarchates meet and decide a major doctrinal issue, their decision is infallible." That's just not historically true. Another example, "If the Pope speaks ex-cathedra, it is infallible." You would want to claim this one, but again because of the human element, I deny it. Popes have been called heretics in the past (Honorius, Vigilus) even while presenting what they intended to be doctrine (Honorius with his two letters confirming the teachings of the Patriarch of Constantinople, which were monothelite in nature and for which Honorius was rightly condemned). Further, the Popes, in upholding Cardinal Humbert's "papal bull" that accused (and anathematized) the East for "removing a clause (the filioque) from the creed" were in error as we had never removed anything from the creed. There is a pope, during the franciscan crises, who actually outright stated that popes can change previous pope's decisions in matters of "faith and morals" - essentially invalidating infallibility. You'd have to say he was wrong (in his papal bull stating this) to defend infallibility. The Old Catholics would certainly deny infallibilty as well, and have since the first Vatican Council. Certainly, there are good answers to these points. I don't mean to suggest that Catholicism isn't intellectually viable. It is. I just see in these a reason for due caution in proclaiming any human being infallible in any respect.

The pope is infallible so long as he proclaims the infallible truth, because it is the truth - which is Christ, who IS the Truth - that we serve and must remain dedicated to - not to a human creation like a bible translation, a council, or a papal bull. To systematize it is to limit God.

The natural question, then, is "how did I become what I am and why does it warrant my obedience" or "how does one come to know the truth?" (more accurately). Those stories tend to be as limitless and unbound as the Holy Spirit itself. It is my belief that the closer one draws to the truth (Christ) the closer one will draw to His true Church (Orthodoxy, in my opinion). That's not an argument meant to convince you of Orthodoxy so much as meant to convince you that the view I'm presenting here is internally consistent.

That said, I do believe the Truth is, and that it is knowable (in limited form within this lifetime, as sin always hounds us) by the grace of God. I believe the Orthodox Church is the repository of the fullness of that Truth - the church truest to the apostolic revelation listed above. I partly believe that precisely because scripture nor pope or council to (automatically) be infallible. I don't think, however, that I'm going to convince you by argumentation (although I will defend Orthodoxy's viability as an intellectual position if you genuinely believe that it isn't intellectually viable).

To answer the OP: Chalcedon is an ecumenical council because it proclaimed, infallibly, the apostolic truth: that Christ is fully God and fully man, one person in two natures without division or confusion (so that they are inseparable within that one person). If there is a misunderstanding of the meaning of the word "nature" then that can be clarified, but the words themselves - the formula - is completely within the apostolic revelation and, understood properly, is a flawless rendition of that revelation.

I do not, however, think that all councils, no matter the number of bishops nor the amount of the laity that follows them, are de-facto infallible nor fallible.

[a_ntv]

Those "solutions" though are hardly infallible on their own right. They are infallible only in so far as they proclaim the truth. There have been countless "false" councils that failed to be true to the tradition of the church and were rightly rejected.
...
In particular, though, and this I think even a bishop ought not to do, I do not systematize it. I don't say "if X happens then X is infallible." For example, "If Scripture says X, X is true" because this depends on so many human elements (the critical text selected, the translation, my human understanding of the passage, the historical context - a speculative human assesment in itself - etc etc). Another example, "If 200+ bishops from all 5 patriarchates meet and decide a major doctrinal issue, their decision is infallible." That's just not historically true.
...
That said, I do believe the Truth is, and that it is knowable (in limited form within this lifetime, as sin always hounds us) by the grace of God. I believe the Orthodox Church is the repository of the fullness of that Truth - the church truest to the apostolic revelation listed above. I partly believe that precisely because scripture nor pope or council to (automatically) be infallible. I don't think, however, that I'm going to convince you by argumentation (although I will defend Orthodoxy's viability as an intellectual position if you genuinely believe that it isn't intellectually viable).


Very interesting post.

I agree with you in many points.

One of the base points you pointed out is I do believe the Truth is, and that it is knowable (in limited form within this lifetime, as sin always hounds us) by the grace of God.

I can add an other point, taking it from the very definition of papal infallibility of 1870: he defines a doctrine regarding faith or morals to be held by the universal Church is possessed of that infallibility with which the Divine Redeemer willed that his Church should be endowed in defining doctrine regarding faith or morals,
I dont want here to debate about the pope infallibility, but simply to underline the fact that the Church is helped by Christ in keeping the orthodox doctrine. With which tools? Scripture, Councils, Fahters, Liturgy, Popes...: all these are simply tools, we sometime can disagree which one is more important...

So the starting points are:
1) the Truth is, and that it is knowable (in limited form within this lifetime, as sin always hounds us) by the grace of God.
2) God want His Church to be endowed with an infallibility in defining doctrine regarding faith or morals,

These two statments are quite similar, and they are the base of the Tradition.
It is also clear that the 'infallibility' is an attribute of the Church, not of a single man or of a single events or of group of bishops.

So a single group of bishop, even in a council, cannot say "we own the infallibity to define...", but they can simply say "we are a tool to express the infallibility owned by the church" (the same for the pope himself).

Which is the difference? the difference is that what a tool can do depends also from the abilities of the tool.

The same for the Scripture: it was not faxed by the heaven, but written by human authors, who, if helped by God, used their mind to write it. And so there are statments in the scripture very difficoult or even in contraddiction with others.
So the bishops of council of Calcedonia were simply a tool used by God. And the final result depended also from their abilities to express the Truth, and the way they expressed the faith was not perfect, beacuse it was not faxed by the heaven.

[minasoliman]

Dear Macarius,

You wrote an excellent post, but I just have one question:

To answer the OP: Chalcedon is an ecumenical council because it proclaimed, infallibly, the apostolic truth: that Christ is fully God and fully man, one person in two natures without division or confusion (so that they are inseparable within that one person). If there is a misunderstanding of the meaning of the word "nature" then that can be clarified, but the words themselves - the formula - is completely within the apostolic revelation and, understood properly, is a flawless rendition of that revelation.

Wouldn't one then also consider the acceptance of "local" Orthodox councils as "ecumenical?" What if those who did not accept Chalcedon turned out to be no less Orthodox then those who accepted it?

God bless.

[Macarius]

Dear Macarius,

You wrote an excellent post, but I just have one question:



Wouldn't one then also consider the acceptance of "local" Orthodox councils as "ecumenical?" What if those who did not accept Chalcedon turned out to be no less Orthodox then those who accepted it?

God bless.
Two excellent questions.

The word ecumenical, at the time of the Byzatines, only meant "imperial" - so that the Patriarch of Constantinople was called the "ecumenical patriarch" because he was the patriarch of the capitol of the empire. There were also "ecumenical" stables.

There were many local councils that did carry the same force of truth as ecumenical ones - though because they were local their influence wasn't as far reaching and so they have had less historical significance.

I don't care if it's a council of 3 or a council of 2000 that preaches the truth - a council is Orthodox if it preaches the Orthodox faith. A great example would be local councils being given "ecumenical" force (that is force of imperial law) - like Carthage defining the canon of scripture.

In answer to your second question, I would say that if Chalcedon did not negatively effect the orthodoxy of those who accepted it, then those who denied it schismed for poor reasons and are guilty not of heresy, but of being schismatics. I don't doubt you will have a different perspective (which is fine!) but if the council wasn't heretical - if it didn't negatively impact the orthodoxy of those who followed it (if both sides 1400 years later can look at each other and recognize each other's orthodoxy) then the council should be accepted for the sake of unity. That's my perspective, anywho...

a_ntv - the perspective I was attempting to present was one in which no single person or group of people could claim to be de facto (automatically) a tool for that infallibility since we are all fallen sinners and I don't wish to limit how God may choose to guide His church by "systematizing" it.

While I understand and respect your perspective - that it is God who grants this infallibility to the Pope - that (to me) is an "infallibility switch." I am not comfortable with the amount of pride that it takes for a human being to claim such a thing - because that's what this is: the Pope claiming the be infallible ex-cathedra by the act of God (and a lot of people called the RCC agreeing with him, and a lot of people called protestants, orthodox, and oriental orthodox who don't).

I don't wish to disagree with you in a personal sense - like I said I respect your perspective - but I'm wondering (based on your explanation) if you misunderstood my point.

I could put it this way: I'm comfortable saying that the Pope is infallible - and may be infallible until the end of time - so long as he preaches nothing but orthodoxy (that apostolic revelation). However, that "if" (if he preaches the apostolic revelation) is a big one. Roman Catholicism, to me, makes the Pope de facto infallible - makes his ex cathedra statements the bar of truth and doctrine. It's the de facto part that bugs me.

In Christ,
Macarius

[a_ntv]

I could put it this way: I'm comfortable saying that the Pope is infallible - and may be infallible until the end of time - so long as he preaches nothing but orthodoxy (that apostolic revelation). However, that "if" (if he preaches the apostolic revelation) is a big one.
In a certain sense you are perfectly right.

My previous post was not on the issue of the pope, or on Calcedonia, but it was simply to focus on the fact that the 'infallibility' is an attribute of the Church, not of a single man or of a single events or of group of bishops.

We cannot speak of the value of the infallibility of a council (or of the pope) without considering the whole Church (and the whole Church includes also the OO)

A council (or a pope) posseses the infallibilty, but it doeas NOT own the infallibility: in other words, the infallibility is subject to the Truth.

[Macarius]

In a certain sense you are perfectly right.

My previous post was not on the issue of the pope, or on Calcedonia, but it was simply to focus on the fact that the 'infallibility' is an attribute of the Church, not of a single man or of a single events or of group of bishops.

We cannot speak of the value of the infallibility of a council (or of the pope) without considering the whole Church (and the whole Church includes also the OO)

A council (or a pope) posseses the infallibilty, but it doeas NOT own the infallibility: in other words, the infallibility is subject to the Truth.
If the infallibility is subject to the truth, then it is possible that a fallible human being could, in sin, depart from that truth, no?

[a_ntv]

If the infallibility is subject to the truth, then it is possible that a fallible human being could, in sin, depart from that truth, no?
Yes of course

[Macarius]

Yes of course
Then the Pope could, concievably, depart from that truth? Then the Pope isn't infallible at all, unless what he says is true? Then the doctrine that the pope will always be (de facto) infallible when speaking ex cathedra is wrong / mis-stated?

Perhaps chain logic will clarify: the pope is a sinful human being. Sinful human beings can depart from the truth. The pope can, therefore, depart from the truth.

Second edit: I suppose you would differentiate between the human pope and private opinion, and the "ex cathedra" statement. But in both cases it is a human being speaking, so, from my own (fallible) perspective, the logic applies, and the "infallibility" tool falls.

[buzuxi02]

Another question one asks is if faith is Orthodox even without accepting the council, then which is more important? To accept faith or to accept the council with the faith.

But, if you ask him about the faith, he will believe in the Trinity, in Christ as fully God and fully human, in the Holy Spirit's divinity, in the fullness of Christ's humanity, which includes energy, operation, and will, as well as the divinity, in the Nicene Creed, in the veneration of Icons, in the sacraments, the Eucharist, the priesthood, in the One, Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church.

God bless.[/quote]

Dear Quanta,

This above statement from Mina, is whats called the conscience of the church. That which was always held in all places and at all times.

[xristos.anesti]

The sign of unity in the faith is the Pope, as Peter was speaker of the apostoles, not the councils, nor the criteria of consciouness that simply means that who won is right

Maybe in Rome - not over here.

If you read Acts 15 you will see the principle of the conciliarity of the Church.

They (Apostles) had a council - they did not ask St. Peter what to do because he was ex cathedra and infallible because he had the keys - they all had the keys and they all sat down, prayed and received direction from the Holy Spirit.

God did not say: O' you Apostles, what are you doing - just ask Peter to sit down and to ex cathedra speak - he is infallible on matters of faith, doctrine, moral...

We know that St. Peter was not infallible - actually, he is one that has been shown to be very, very fallible...

So, what you are saying is wrong - it does not pass the test of historical truth - which is - the Papal infallibility is a product of people that really did not know much about what the word Catholic really means, people who have been cut off from the body of Christ for a 1000 years.

What you are saying is incorrect.

St. Peter was deemed incorrect and was due to that corrected by St. Paul. St. Peter was the leader of the Apostles - but he was not what you (RC) are trying to sell to us here. How many Roman Catholic bishops ever corrected the Pope of Rome when they were wrong? None, because they would have been expelled from the Roman Church - that is not the spirit of conciliarity - St. Paul corrected St. Peter - if that happened in Medichi's Rome he would have his head chopped off for speaking against the ruler. If it happened in the time of Vatican I - St. Paul would have been Old Catholic... etc.

You have to realise that we are not going - never, not even then - to kneel and slave under the bishop of Rome. Just as when our episkopes were wrong and received correction from others and they changed their ways (or we found the new ones) - so should you because your bishop is wrong and has been for a very wrong time.

That is how conciliarity and the catholicity of the Church work.



Many years.

[minasoliman]

In answer to your second question, I would say that if Chalcedon did not negatively effect the orthodoxy of those who accepted it, then those who denied it schismed for poor reasons and are guilty not of heresy, but of being schismatics. I don't doubt you will have a different perspective (which is fine!) but if the council wasn't heretical - if it didn't negatively impact the orthodoxy of those who followed it (if both sides 1400 years later can look at each other and recognize each other's orthodoxy) then the council should be accepted for the sake of unity. That's my perspective, anywho...

I understand. That's probably the barrier that many of us OO's have to battle in order to get our point across. I think one of things need investigated is, with a humble spirit, to find out the "other view" of issues, and to understand the justification behind a rejection of a council, primarily because of anathema, but also of political and linguistic situations as well.

God bless.

[Macarius]

I understand. That's probably the barrier that many of us OO's have to battle in order to get our point across. I think one of things need investigated is, with a humble spirit, to find out the "other view" of issues, and to understand the justification behind a rejection of a council, primarily because of anathema, but also of political and linguistic situations as well.

God bless.
As I understand it, the council was rejected because of concerns that it left openings for a neo-nestorian theology that, while not going so far as to say there were two sons, still left a sense of separation between divine and human within the God-Man Christ.

That's a fair criticism if the word "nature" is understood as I gather the OO understood the word "nature."

I just don't think that's how the word was meant, and I take as evidence the lack of Nestorian tendencies among the EO and RCC, who followed Chacledon. The 5th ecumenical council, with its condemnation (formal) of a number of Nestorian writings, goes a long way towards safeguarding that. Perhaps things were different prior to the 5th council and the critique of chalcedon had more evident necessity.

If you'd like, I'm more than willing to listen to your perspective, as (beyond what I've just written) I know very little about the specific reasoning for the OO's rejection of Chalcedon. At the least, thanks to the OO here, I correctly understand it had nothing to do with mono-physite tendencies, but concern over wording, which I respect.

In Christ,
Macarius

[a_ntv]

Perhaps chain logic will clarify: the pope is a sinful human being. Sinful human beings can depart from the truth. The pope can, therefore, depart from the truth. Yes of course. It is a common believe that many popes are in the hell.

Second edit: I suppose you would differentiate between the human pope and private opinion, and the "ex cathedra" statement. But in both cases it is a human being speaking, so, from my own (fallible) perspective, the logic applies, and the "infallibility" tool falls.
If you use a human only perspective you are perfectly right.

The point is that even if a pope personally can depart from the truth, on the other side there is the promise of Jesus to Peter ".. I will build my church, and the gates of Hades will not overcome it."

Christ doesnot allow that his Church is leaded into the gates of Hades (well, sometime some popes may have leaded the Church in such a path, but the Holy Spirt had always stopped the Church before the gates of Hades were entered and moved back the Church to the right path).

This is the principle point we have to agree.

Than we can debate of the means used by the Holy Spirit: ex cathedra pope statments, ecumenical councils, orthodox Fathers.... The terms in italics ( ex cathedra, ecumenical, orthodox) are used to divide the mandatory ones, from the other ones: so a EO says the the 451 council was ecumenical (=worthy of credit), while the 449 council was not. This principle can be used also with the papal statments (ex cathedra or not)

[WarriorAngel]

I believe the actions and personal opinions of Pope's are not infallible.

Infallibe means only that whe he is speaking on an already set doctrine, but defines it and makes it dogma [not to be argued] then he is using the Holy Spirit to bring infallible teaching.

[xristos.anesti]

I believe the actions and personal opinions of Pope's are not infallible.

Infallibe means only that whe he is speaking on an already set doctrine, but defines it and makes it dogma [not to be argued] then he is using the Holy Spirit to bring infallible teaching.

Good - I disagree and do not believe that.

Many years.

[Albion]

I believe the actions and personal opinions of Pope's are not infallible.

Infallibe means only that whe he is speaking on an already set doctrine, but defines it and makes it dogma [not to be argued] then he is using the Holy Spirit to bring infallible teaching.

That's so, in theory at least, and it's unfortunate that some cannot see what it is all about, whether or not they accept the idea.

It's peculiar though that the doctrine of Papal Infallibility was created only in recent times, causing all this controversy, yet it has hardly been part of the church in practice. Every non-RC Christian is offended at it, but the RCC itself could have done just as well without it.

[Macarius]

Yes of course. It is a common believe that many popes are in the hell.

If you use a human only perspective you are perfectly right.

Ok - let me put my Martian hat on. :P

The point is that even if a pope personally can depart from the truth, on the other side there is the promise of Jesus to Peter ".. I will build my church, and the gates of Hades will not overcome it."

False assumption that this applies to Peter and infallibility. I do agree that it promises infallibility to the Church, but only in an eschatalogical sense - the Church, pillar and ground of the truth, will not die. It will continue to successfully proclaim the truth until and after the 2nd coming. I do not believe this can be used to grant any immediate or systematic infallibility to a portion of the church, nor protects it from periods of near-death (as you said). It is a promise to the whole body that at no point will they completely cease from the earth (die).

This is the principle point we have to agree.

We agree on the essential infallibility of the church.

Than we can debate of the means used by the Holy Spirit:

We can make the attempt, but my expectation is to fruit only a more refined understanding of one another's views. I refuse to systematize God or limit Him.

ex cathedra pope statments, ecumenical councils, orthodox Fathers.... The terms in italics ( ex cathedra, ecumenical, orthodox) are used to divide the mandatory ones, from the other ones: so a EO says the the 451 council was ecumenical (=worthy of credit), while the 449 council was not. This principle can be used also with the papal statments (ex cathedra or not)

An interesting perspective, and I think I see where you are going with it, but I'll let you make the point first since I don't want to put words in your mouth and attack a straw-man :sorry:

Ecumenical, by the by, means "imperial" or "having the force of imperial law" in the case of a council. While there was a sense that the presence of the Holy Spirit in guiding a council conferred infallibilty, that was conditional on the council proclaiming the infallible truth, and hardly automatic (as the many false councils attest to).

[a_ntv]

I do agree that it promises infallibility to the Church, but only in an eschatalogical sense - the Church, pillar and ground of the truth, will not die. It will continue to successfully proclaim the truth until and after the 2nd coming. I do not believe this can be used to grant any immediate or systematic infallibility to a portion of the church, nor protects it from periods of near-death (as you said). It is a promise to the whole body that at no point will they completely cease from the earth (die).

Let's underderstand what is the infallibilty.

We can, for debate use only, to look the Church as made in three parts: the escatoligial church (in the heaven, described in the revelation), the visible church (the one made of men), the personal church (we are temple of the Holy Spirit).

Which Church was Jesus speaking about when He said ".. I will build my church, and the gates of Hades will not overcome it."?
for sure not the personal church (each of us can go in the hell), but we have to exclude also the escatological church: this church was founded before the time (and not after Jesus caming), and it is placed in front of the Father, around the Lamb. For sure this Church is not even touched by the Hades. There is not even a remote chance of it.

So Jesus was speaking about the visible Church, the Church founded by Jesus, the Church that dwells in the history, the Church that will end at His second came. The church made of bishops, priests, baptized people, and made one by the Eucharist.


While there was a sense that the presence of the Holy Spirit in guiding a council conferred infallibilty, that was conditional on the council proclaiming the infallible truth, and hardly automatic (as the many false councils attest to).
Ok. There are two main different ideas (both present in the Catholic Church nad considered valid):

- one is to consider that there are same particular events (like an ecumenical council, a papal declaration, a conclave, a Father, an apparition...) where the Holy Spirit acts directly with a shot (injection) of holy energy to move the evet in the right direction. This attitude (the 'extraordinary shot of grace') requires that we delimit with precision which are these events. With this understanding it is mandatory to divide ecumenical vs not-ecomunical councial, and there is the need to define which are the characteristics that made a councial an ecumenical council

- a different attitude is to think that the Holy Spirit dwells in us, and particulary in the bishops, in any time of their ministries, and so there is not any 'extraordinary shot of energy' in particular events, but it is only the ordinary grace that any bishop has that works. Such a grace is enough, because the grace of God has no limits..
With this attitude there is no more a so huge necessity to grade the councils, but it is enough to say 'this is an importan council, while that one is less important (perhaps due to the scarce partecipation or to the local interest).
This second view, more difficoult but more simply, is arising popularity in the CC particulary after the CVII, helped by the fact that, differently form the EO), we dont have any official list of ecumenical councils or of ex catthedra statments

Your view?

[Albion]

Let's underderstand what is the infallibilty.

We can, for debate use only, to look the Church as made in three parts: the escatoligial church (in the heaven, described in the revelation), the visible church (the one made of men), the personal church (we are temple of the Holy Spirit).

Which Church was Jesus speaking about when He said ".. I will build my church, and the gates of Hades will not overcome it."?

The sum of all his disciples of all times and places.

Now, what about infallibility of lack of it?

[Albion]

I do agree that it promises infallibility to the Church, but only in an eschatalogical sense - the Church, pillar and ground of the truth, will not die. It will continue to successfully proclaim the truth until and after the 2nd coming. I do not believe this can be used to grant any immediate or systematic infallibility to a portion of the church, nor protects it from periods of near-death (as you said). It is a promise to the whole body that at no point will they completely cease from the earth (die).

Yes. I agree to that.


While there was a sense that the presence of the Holy Spirit in guiding a council conferred infallibilty, that was conditional on the council proclaiming the infallible truth, and hardly automatic (as the many false councils attest to).

But this is only their "sense" of things as you said.

We wouldn't consider Ecumenical Councils to be infallible and only the first four could even be considered ecumenical at that.

[Macarius]

Yes. I agree to that.




But this is only their "sense" of things as you said.

We wouldn't consider Ecumenical Councils to be infallible and only the first four could even be considered ecumenical at that.
Well, they were ecumenical because they carried the force of imperial (Byzantine) law, and because all 5 Patriarchates were present / approved them.

I would ask you this: were the 5th council (condemning the Three Chapters - Nestorian writings), the 6th council (condemning monothelitism) or the 7th council (condemning iconoclasm) proclaiming anything untrue?

Did they violate the apostolic revelation / enter into heresy?

Then they are "ecumenical" in the mis-used contemporary sense of "infallible." In so much as they preserved, deepend, and defended the apostolic revelation, they are infallible. It is my opinion, and that of the Orthodox Church, that they did so flawlessly. If you wish to disagree with that, I think it would make for a fascinating discussion to describe where they erred (if you think they did).

Cheers,
Macarius

[Macarius]

Let's underderstand what is the infallibilty.

We can, for debate use only, to look the Church as made in three parts: the escatoligial church (in the heaven, described in the revelation), the visible church (the one made of men), the personal church (we are temple of the Holy Spirit).

Is Christ divided? I must disagree with this. When Christ says the Church He means the gathering of Christians in union with Him - this carries the eschatological and "militant" sense with it. The Church will not die means that the militant church will not cease from this earth, and that, eschatologically, it will abide forever with Christ. I still think even breaking it down that far is a false dichotomy that robs the gospel of its grace. The whole "the kingdom is at hand" language - the idea that the eschatological is made present by the 1st coming of Christ and that we partake of it in the now - is central to the gospel message.

The militant church is the eschatological church (though it is not yet the eschatological church) through the communion of the saints, the entrance into heaven in the liturgy, and the continuous grace of Christ that makes us "become what we are."


Which Church was Jesus speaking about when He said ".. I will build my church, and the gates of Hades will not overcome it."?
for sure not the personal church (each of us can go in the hell), but we have to exclude also the escatological church: this church was founded before the time (and not after Jesus caming), and it is placed in front of the Father, around the Lamb. For sure this Church is not even touched by the Hades. There is not even a remote chance of it.

So Jesus was speaking about the visible Church, the Church founded by Jesus, the Church that dwells in the history, the Church that will end at His second came. The church made of bishops, priests, baptized people, and made one by the Eucharist.


See above - I cannot agree to this line of thinking because I deny the dichotomy between eschatological and militant church as innovative. Not everything has to be de-liniated, analyzed, proded, poked, described, defined, separated, made-distinct, understood. The Church is, like her Lord, a mystery.

one is to consider that there are same particular events (like an ecumenical council, a papal declaration, a conclave, a Father, an apparition...) where the Holy Spirit acts directly with a shot (injection) of holy energy to move the evet in the right direction. This attitude (the 'extraordinary shot of grace') requires that we delimit with precision which are these events. With this understanding it is mandatory to divide ecumenical vs not-ecomunical councial, and there is the need to define which are the characteristics that made a councial an ecumenical council

It is exactly this view (that there are specific, repeatable, definable, systematic moments at which the church is granted infallibilty) that I sought to reject and argue against in my first long post on this thread. (I think on page 2). Ask and I'll copy and paste.

a different attitude is to think that the Holy Spirit dwells in us, and particulary in the bishops, in any time of their ministries, and so there is not any 'extraordinary shot of energy' in particular events, but it is only the ordinary grace that any bishop has that works. Such a grace is enough, because the grace of God has no limits..

I would say that this is true, though I don't think it grants any measure of infallibility - just the grace (so long as it isn't refused) to teach the faithful the apostolic faith and the grace (irrefusable) to perform the sacraments so long as they are in communion with the college of bishops.


With this attitude there is no more a so huge necessity to grade the councils, but it is enough to say 'this is an importan council, while that one is less important (perhaps due to the scarce partecipation or to the local interest).

This second view, more difficoult but more simply, is arising popularity in the CC particulary after the CVII, helped by the fact that, differently form the EO), we dont have any official list of ecumenical councils or of ex catthedra statments


That's encouraging. But I'm confused - I thought the CC had a very distinct list of ex cathedra and ecumenical councils (for example, Florence is defined as the 14th in the RCC list). Are those mere academic niceties, or are those actually official lists? That would be good news to me.

For the record, the EO also doesn't have an official list of ecumenical councils. I (among many others) would count the council that ended the Photian schism as ecumenical since it carried the force of imperial law and, so far as I can tell, perfectly proclaimed the truth of the apostolic revelation. It was also, incidently, attended by all 5 patriarchates and enforced by all their successors until the great schism (when the anti-photian council gained support in the West again).

We believe a church wide council could still be held by the Orthodox, though there hasn't been a need.

In Christ,
Macarius

[a_ntv]

Is Christ divided? I must disagree with this. ..
The militant church is the eschatological church (though it is not yet the eschatological church) .......
See above - I cannot agree to this line of thinking because I deny the dichotomy between eschatological and militant church as innovative.
Well, I said "for debate use only" because the Catholic Church strongly believe that the church is One. The 'division' was only for better approaching the topics.

The militant church IS the eschatoligical church (though not yet...)
So the the militant church HAS the characteristic of the eschatolicial church: the phisical union with Christ (here by the Eucharist, there in fullness), the truth (here unpropertly declared by our words, there in evidence), the holyness, the catholicity, the apostologicity, the ordered nature (here in communion with the pope, there ordered in front of Christ Himself)....
You cannot say that when Jesus said " I will build my church, and the gates of Hades will not overcome it" He spoke only about the escatological church and not about the militant church. Of course the eschatoligical church will be free at all from any evil, but this sentence apply ALSO (even if in a un-perfect way) to the militant church.


It is exactly this view (that there are specific, repeatable, definable, systematic moments at which the church is granted infallibilty) that I sought to reject and argue against in my first long post on this thread. (I think on page 2). Ask and I'll copy and paste.

I would say that this is true, ...I'm happy we have find a common base to understand the infallibility (even if from different ways)

Ad instance the Cathechism of the CC says: The college of bishops exercises power over the universal Church in a solemn manner in an ecumenical council. It uses the term "solemn", not the term 'extraordinary' to describe the council. It is clear that such power that the bishops have do not came from the council itself, nor from a shot of grace, but from their being college of bishops (in communion with the pope).


That's encouraging. But I'm confused - I thought the CC had a very distinct list of ex cathedra and ecumenical councils (for example, Florence is defined as the 14th in the RCC list). Are those mere academic niceties, or are those actually official lists? That would be good news to me.
Usually the catholic manuals use the so called 'Bellarmino list': in fact in the XVII century there was a famous edition, by the Vatican press, of all the texts of all the councils with editor card Bellarminio. The councils which texts were published formed the 'so called' Bellarmino list.
But there was never a papal statment about that, nor any offical declaration to define the canon of the councils.
Also, in recent meetings with the EO, the CC was very open on this issue.


It was also, incidently, attended by all 5 patriarchates and enforced by all their successors until the great schism
(ad instance the council of ephesus 431 was not partecipated by the patriarch of Antioch, John: and for sure the aniochean bishops, if were waited for, wuold have voted against Cyrill theisis)

[zhilan]

Can you imagine today Pope Benedict making a decision on some issue of faith and one of his bishops saying, no you're wrong and arguing with him and Pope Benedict changing his mind and giving in? That would never happen and if it did, most Catholics would be horrified and probably leave the faith believing that he must be the anti-pope or something. And yet, this was the nature of the first "pope" St. Peter.

Why the change?