Respectful Question on Doctrinal Development

AveChristusRex · Dec 20, 2024

prodromos said:
Neither of which were issues for Rome at the time of the 1st Vatican Council. Nor would I describe them as heresies, since they are largely consistent with Church praxis prior to the great schism.

"The council's main purpose was to clarify Catholic doctrine in response to the rising influence of the modern philosophical trends of the 19th century." Those including the undertones of Gallicanism and Conciliarism that were prevalent in the Church clergy at the time, you see the culmination of this via the schism of the Old Catholics.

prodromos said:
It actually isn't true that the filioque had been promulgated by the 3rd Council of Toledo as it was never inserted into their Creed, and Macedonianism was put to an end in Constantinople I with the addition to the Creed of the section on the Holy Spirit without the filioque.

Correct, the council adopted a regional profession of faith that included the filioque as part of its doctrinal affirmation. Toledo was in Spain, which was Visigothic at the time, so the specification was needed; the filioque does not contradict the Creed of Constantinople I when understood correctly. On the matter of Macedonianism, while it was condemned, it was still such an issue as to be addressed by St. Gregory of Nyssa in his On the Holy Spirit Against the Macedonians, which, according to Academia, was dated: "to some time after the Council of Constantinople of 381."

prodromos said:
You claim it was in response, not to a heresy in the Church, but outside of it? That is not consistent with the Ecumenical Councils.

When I said "and its effects in the Church at the time of Pius IX" I meant that its undertones were there; I said to ArmyMatt: "the reformed view did not hit the east as hard as it did the west, and thus the protestant undertones in the clergy [especially among ones in England] needed to be officially doctrinally weeded out;" It was in the Church, but the heresy originated from outside, thus needed addressing.

prodromos said:
I disagree. As Patriarch Bartholomew said in a talk given at Georgetown University, "we have become ontologically different"

Thats okay! I think that he may have errored there, but that's okay, you are entitled to your own view on the East-West Ontology!

prodromos said:
It was considered Orthodox because it agreed with St Cyril, not because it was written by the Pope. If the Church believed that the Pope was infallible then they would have simply accepted what he had written without investigation.

The Tome’s reception was not merely because it aligned with St. Cyril but also because it carried the weight of the papal office. St. Leo himself wrote: "For the Spirit of Truth would never permit even this small portion of the Catholic Church to be separated from the Gospel of Christ. By the Divine Providence, it has been always so arranged that the truth needed for the whole Church might proceed from the chief of the Apostles’ see" (Letter 120, to the Council of Chalcedon). Moreover, the citation stated upon the reception of the Tome "Piously and truly did Leo teach, so taught Cyril;" it was not a comparison, but a mirroring of the form A (Leo) = B (Cyril), B/A = A/A ['/' indicates the same teaching].

prodromos said:
That is so vague. Neither Gallicanism nor Concilliarism were issues in Rome at Vatican I

It was in the Church in philosophical form: For Gallicanism, many bishops and theologians, particularly in France and Germany, held it well into the 19th century, with the bishops at Vatican I who opposed the definition of infallibility often invoking Gallican or Conciliarist concerns, with some Gallican-influenced bishops and theologians, such as the Old Catholics, rejecting the definition of papal infallibility altogether. Moreover, as I said, the undertones of Gallicanism and Conciliarism that were prevalent in the Church clergy at the time, you see the culmination of this via the schism of the Old Catholics.

prodromos said:
The Councils dealt with issues that were within the Church, not without, and the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception has led Rome into further errors, where it is now perfectly acceptable to believe that Mary did not die, even though the feast of the Dormition of Mary was celebrated in the Church for centuries before the schism.

St. Epiphanius of Salamis wrote in "Panarion" in "Contra antidicomarianitas" about the end of the Virgin Mary the following: "If any think am mistaken, moreover, let them search through the scriptures any neither find Mary's death, nor whether or not she died, nor whether or not she was buried—even though John surely travelled throughout Asia. And yet, nowhere does he say that he took the holy Virgin with him. Scripture simply kept silence because of the overwhelming wonder, not to throw men's minds into consternation. For I dare not say—though I have my suspicions, I keep silent. Perhaps, just as her death is not to be found, so I may have found some traces of the holy and blessed Virgin. ...The holy virgin may have died and been buried—her falling asleep was with honour, her death in purity, her crown in virginity. Or she may have been put to death—as the scripture says, 'And a sword shall pierce through her soul'—her fame is among the martyrs and her holy body, by which light rose on the world, [rests] amid blessings. Or she may have remained alive, for God is not incapable of doing whatever he wills. No one knows her end." His contemporary St. Ambrose dismissed the view that Mary was martyred when exegeting Saint Simeon's prophecy in (Luke 2.35), reducing the options to either natural death or assumption: "Neither the letter of Scripture nor history teaches that Mary passed from this life by suffering execution, for it is not the soul but the body [some speculate] which is pierced through and through by the material sword."

Also, the Dormitio Beatae Virginis of Sergius I was borrowed from Constantinople (source), and was not an independent development. You also miss that the dogmatic definition avoids saying whether she was dead or alive at that point, but that She DID assume into heaven, with Pius XII alluding to the fact of her death at least five times. Thus, it is perfectly coagulated with the Eastern view, with the claim that "where it is now perfectly acceptable to believe that Mary did not die" existing in the time of Epiphanius, who did not consider it a heresy.

prodromos said:
Papal supremacy and infallibility fail that test, among others.

This cannot be the case, as Papal supremacy and infallibility must be rooted in tradition, as infallibility is the actualization of a doctrine, not the genesis. From Pastor Aeternus: “For the Holy Spirit was promised to the successors of Peter not so that they might, by His revelation, make known some new doctrine, but that, by His assistance, they might religiously guard and faithfully expound the revelation or deposit of faith transmitted by the apostles" (Pastor Aeternus, Chapter 4). I think you just misunderstood infallibility or made up your mind about it already, which is okay! There is no judgment here.

prodromos said:
Papal supremacy and infallibility, the filioque, the later Marian doctrines.

None of these are contradictions when studied deeply and without an Eastern or Western bias.

prodromos said:
The Greek bishops were dependent on Rome providing the means for them to return home and the Emperor was pressuring them as he wanted military aid from Rome. They were literally held under house arrest until they agreed to Rome's terms. Those who had their own means left before the council ended and of those who remained, most reversed their decision on returning home. The council of Ferarra-Florence was a debacle.

This is a conspiracy theory posited in the early 20th century and has been proven wrong many times. This topic [Florence] is one of closeness to myself, as I wrote a disputation on this subject. A. N. Stoneman, in ‘The Union of Florence (1439): A Historical and Theological Study’ directly contradicts this: “Many Eastern theologians and leaders viewed the possibility of union not as a mere necessity born out of military desperation, but as a genuine opportunity to heal centuries of division within Christianity.” Stoneman points out that some Eastern leaders participated in the union discussions to seek reconciliation rather than coercion. Similarly, A. A. Vasiliev, in ‘The Byzantine Empire: A Short History,’ states the same: “The negotiations for union were characterized by a diversity of opinions among the bishops, indicating that they were not merely puppets of the Emperor’s will.” This highlights the internal debate and agency among the bishops, suggesting they were not coerced.

And just to hit the nail on its head, Fr. John Meyendorff, in ‘The Eastern Orthodox Church,’ wrote: “While political pressures certainly existed, the motivations for union were deeply rooted in the hope for a renewed and unified Christendom, rather than mere opportunism to secure military aid.” Some more examples include Metropolitan Kalistos (Timothy) Ware in ‘The Council of Florence: History and Theology’ writing for the Greek Orthodox Theological Review: “While the Emperor certainly played a crucial role in pushing for union, it is essential to recognize the significant dissent that existed among the bishops, showing that coercion was not the sole factor.” Robert S. Nelson in ‘The Union of Florence and the Resistance of the Orthodox Church’ states the same: “The strong opposition faced by the union indicates that there was no simple coercion; rather, a significant segment of the Church remained firmly against papal supremacy.” Finally, though there are many others, I will end with Paul L. Maier in ‘Politics and Religion in the Byzantine Empire,’ who perfectly stated our position: “The interplay of politics and religion during this period reveals that while the Emperor sought union, his authority was not absolute, and the bishops wielded their own influence.”

(1/2)

AveChristusRex · Dec 20, 2024

ArmyMatt said:
no it doesn’t.

How does it not, though?

ArmyMatt said:
God called him to other areas. that still never shows that any authority passes to Rome alone.

Right, but St. Irenaeus stated, “For it is a matter of necessity that every Church should agree with this Church [of Rome], on account of its preeminent authority, that is, the faithful everywhere should agree with the Roman Church because of the apostles who founded it” (Against Heresies, Book 3, Chapter 3, Section 2). His final seat of authority was in Rome, where he was martyred, and the unity of the Church is intimately tied to the paramount office of Peter in Rome.

ArmyMatt said:
except no one argued it was an infallible statement. no one made the case it was infallible and should be adopted. you’re saying everyone knew Rome had this authority, and nobody made the case for it at either Ephesus (the robber synod) or Chalcedon.

At Ephesus, it was Pope Leo I who named it Latrocinium ("Robber Synod"); moreover, during the first proceeding, Leo I referred to his dogmatic Tome, which he intended the council to accept as a ruling of faith: "We have given an explicit definition of the truth, which we know you will approve and accept." The same applies to Chalcedon, which read the Tome again with the previous quotation within.

ArmyMatt said:
so?

A Pontiff cannot be judged by those below him, and thus only his proceeding pontiff could condemn him, as he held the same position. I will quote my Contra JSRG for the next two responses, found in Two more Italian priests sanctioned for claiming Francis is ‘anti-pope’: "...while a Pontiff can summon a lower cleric to a trial for heresy, no one can do the same to a Pontiff; for there is no authority on Earth higher than a reigning Pontiff. Take these three examples:

Pope St. Nicholas, epistle (8), Proposueramus quidem: “… Neither by Augustus, nor by all the clergy, nor by religious, not by the people will the judge be judged… ‘The first seat will not be judged by anyone.’” (Denz. 330)
Pope St. Leo IX, In terra pax hominibus, Chap. 11: “By passing judgment on the great See, concerning which it is not permitted any man to pass judgment, you have received anathema from all the Fathers of the venerable Councils…” (Denz. 352)
Pope St. Leo IX, In terra pax hominibus, Chap. 32: “… As the hinge while remaining immoveable opens and closes the door, so Peter and his successors have free judgment over all the Church, since no one should remove their status because ‘the highest See is judged by no one.’” (Denz. 353)
St. Robert Bellarmine, De Romano Pontifice, Book II, Chap. 29: “Just as it is licit to resist the Pontiff who attacks the body, so also is it licit to resist him who attacks souls or destroys the civil order or above all, tries to destroy the Church. I say that it is licit to resist him by not doing what he orders and by impeding the execution of his will. It is not licit, however, to judge him, to punish him, or to depose him.”

In particular, Canon 1556, 1917 Code of Canon Law, On trials in general: “The First See is judged by no one.”"

ArmyMatt said:
so Vigilius was only excommunicated by the 5th Council when he agreed that he was excommunicated, and he was only excommunicated by the West when he agreed after the 5th Council.

Not quite, according to Pope Paul IV' Cum Ex Apostolatus Officio: "...or even a Roman Pontiff prior to his promotion or elevation as Cardinal or Roman Pontiff, has deviated from the Catholic Faith or fallen into some heresy, then his promotion or elevation, even if it be uncontested and carried out by the unanimous assent of all the Cardinals, shall be null, invalid, and void; [...]." Also see the 1917 Code of Canon Law, which for canon 188.4 of the 1917 Code of Canon Law on loss of office without declaration, it gives a footnote (in the original Latin version) to Pope Paul IV’s bull: “There are certain causes which effect the tacit (silent) resignation of an office, which resignation is accepted in advance by operation of the law, and hence is effective without any declaration. These causes are… (4) if he has publicly fallen away from the faith.”

The important matter here is "without any declaration." All of this applies to the time period before any declaration. Moreover, St. Robert Bellarmine, De Romano Pontifice, II, 30, speaking of a claimant to the Papal Office: "For, in the first place, it is proven with arguments from authority and from reason that the manifest heretic is 'ipso facto' deposed. The argument from authority is based on St. Paul (Titus 3:10), who orders that the heretic be avoided after two warnings, that is, after showing himself to be manifestly obstinate - which means before any excommunication or judicial sentence. And this is what St. Jerome writes, adding that the other sinners are excluded from the Church by sentence of excommunication, but the heretics exile themselves and separate themselves by their own act from the body of Christ."

Moreover, Pope Leo XIII, in Satis Cognitum #9, says: “The practice of the Church has always been the same, as is shown by the unanimous teaching of the Fathers, who were wont to hold as outside Catholic communion, and alien to the Church, whoever would recede in the least degree from any point of doctrine proposed by her authoritative Magisterium.” He later states [Satis Cognitum #15], in relation to his previous statement “No one, therefore, unless in communion with Peter can share in his authority, since it is absurd to imagine that he who is outside can command in the Church.” If anyone was to recede in the least degree from any point of doctrine, he would be outside the Church; and as such it is absurd to imagine that he who is outside can command in the Church. To end this point, I note St. Antoninus: "In the case in which the pope would become a heretic, he would find himself, by that fact alone and without any other sentence, separated from the Church. A head separated from a body cannot, as long as it remains separated, be head of the same body from which it was cut off. A pope who would be separated from the Church by heresy, therefore, would by that very fact itself cease to be head of the Church. He could not be a heretic and remain pope, because, since he is outside of the Church, he cannot possess the keys of the Church." (Summa Theologica, cited in Actes de Vatican I. V. Frond pub.)

We see here that Vigilius or any Pope who publically errors (external forum) he is ipso facto deposed of his position immediately upon his declaration of that error. St. Robert Bellarmine, De Romano Pontifice, Book II, Chapter 30: “A pope who is a manifest heretic automatically (per se) ceases to be pope and head, just as he ceases automatically to be a Christian and a member of the Church. Wherefore, he can be judged and punished by the Church. This is the teaching of all the ancient Fathers who teach that manifest heretics immediately lose all jurisdiction.” Note the last part, after Vigilius committed error, he was no longer the Pope, and thus he can be judged and punished by the Church the way the Church sees fit to punish him, however it must be done with the proceeding legal Pontiff overseeing and declaring the condemnations to be valid, which is what happened at the 5th Council.

ArmyMatt said:
plus, the 3rd Council at Ephesus was finished before the Roman delegation even arrived. no one made the case that they needed to wait.

Pope Celestine I had sent a dogmatic letter to the Council that strongly condemned Nestorianism, which was read aloud at the Council and formed the foundation for the decisions made against Nestorius. Since Celestine had made his declaration, they did not need to wait, as the papal legates had been appointed by the pope to represent his authority at the council, and the Roman judgment was held to have doctrinal weight, even before the legates arrived. In The Acts of the Council of Ephesus (431 AD), Session I: "The letter of Pope Celestine was read aloud in the assembly, confirming the condemnation of Nestorius and affirming the orthodox faith in the mystery of Christ’s incarnation."

ArmyMatt said:
plus, no Pope presided over any of the 7 Ecumenical Councils.

Papal legates were present, who, as stated before, "had been appointed by the pope to represent his authority." See Canon 6 of Chalcedon (451 AD): “The most reverent Archbishop of Rome, the successor of the Apostles, has sent his legates...and they presided over the proceedings.” At Nicaea: "Pope Sylvester I’s delegates were present at the First Council of Nicaea to represent his authority and position on key issues, including the affirmation of the Nicene Creed and the condemnation of Arianism" (Ecclesiastical History of Sozomen, Book I, Chapter 16).

ArmyMatt said:
so, Arians and Iconoclasts butchering Christians it’s not necessary. no one even mentions it.

The doctrine was not necessary for these issues, as Ecumenical Councils addressed them with the support of the papacy.

ArmyMatt said:
see above. odd silence early on from all sides.

The Ecumenical Councils addressed them properly, and needed no definition by the papacy.

ArmyMatt said:
actually in the Middle Ages, the Father and the Son are the single principle that’s Spirit’s ultimate source.

Father remains the primordial source of the Spirit’s origin, but the procession of the Spirit is not from two separate principles; it is a united principle between the Father and the Son as you said. Note, though, that the Son is the co-cause of the Spirit’s procession, as the Father and the Son are inseparably united in this action. The Holy Spirit’s procession does not come from two separate causes but from a singular principle, which is the relationship between the Father and Son, who share the same divine essence in the divine act of procession while still acknowledging that the Father is the source. Likewise, the Father is the origin, but the Son’s involvement in the Spirit’s communication/procession to the world is essential and inseparable. This is coagulated by the Eastern St. Petro Mohyla, who stated that the Eastern "through the Son" was equal to the West's "from the Son" through the Son playing a role in the Spirit’s mission and sending while keeping that the Father is the ultimate source of the Spirit.

Thus, there is no contradiction.

ArmyMatt said:
merits and Roman understanding of original sin

The idea that our understanding of Original Sin and your understanding of Original Guilt is different comes from Romanides, who was totally wrong, as the disagreement is more about terminology and emphasis than about the doctrine itself. See this good video:

ArmyMatt said:
not now, but we were condemned at a few councils you hold as Ecumenical

Not at all! Provide the Councils, and I will show you.

ArmyMatt said:
Liturgy is theology. you can’t separate the two.

What I meant was that the universal church did not dogmatically state the theological distinction at that time; it was rather in the local liturgical tradition, reflecting the local doctrine at the time. Later, it was made universal.

ArmyMatt said:
and yes, Rome openly condemned the Filioque as a Trinitarian heresy when they agreed with Constantinople IV that restored St Photius. it’s only after a century their view changed.

The Filioque controversy was not explicitly addressed or condemned at Constantinople IV, and the restoration of Photius was a matter of Photius' authority and recognition of Photius as the rightful patriarch, not a theological endorsement, which was already using the filioque locally. Moreover, the Eastern Catholics are able to deny the usage of it in their liturgy, but since the two contain no contradiction, they remain fully in communion with the Holy See, which the Orthodox are able to do at any time without any theological contradiction.

(2/2)

ArmyMatt · Dec 20, 2024

AveChristusRex said:
How does it not, though?

because that’s just made up. proto infallibility doesn’t make sense. it was either given by Christ or it wasn’t. either the Apostles knew it or they didn’t.

AveChristusRex said:
Right, but St. Irenaeus stated, “For it is a matter of necessity that every Church should agree with this Church [of Rome], on account of its preeminent authority, that is, the faithful everywhere should agree with the Roman Church because of the apostles who founded it” (Against Heresies, Book 3, Chapter 3, Section 2). His final seat of authority was in Rome, where he was martyred, and the unity of the Church is intimately tied to the paramount office of Peter in Rome.

doesn’t say infallibility. plus, St Irenaeus opposed Rome concerning the quartodecimens. so he didn’t understand it the way you did.

AveChristusRex said:
At Ephesus, it was Pope Leo I who named it Latrocinium ("Robber Synod"); moreover, during the first proceeding, Leo I referred to his dogmatic Tome, which he intended the council to accept as a ruling of faith: "We have given an explicit definition of the truth, which we know you will approve and accept." The same applies to Chalcedon, which read the Tome again with the previous quotation within.

and His supporters at both synods never mentioned infallibility. never even argued for it.

AveChristusRex said:
A Pontiff cannot be judged by those below him, and thus only his proceeding pontiff could condemn him, as he held the same position. I will quote my Contra JSRG for the next two responses, found in Two more Italian priests sanctioned for claiming Francis is ‘anti-pope’: "...while a Pontiff can summon a lower cleric to a trial for heresy, no one can do the same to a Pontiff; for there is no authority on Earth higher than a reigning Pontiff. Take these three examples:

again, Vigilius was excommunicated by both East and West.

AveChristusRex said:
Pope St. Nicholas, epistle (8), Proposueramus quidem: “… Neither by Augustus, nor by all the clergy, nor by religious, not by the people will the judge be judged… ‘The first seat will not be judged by anyone.’” (Denz. 330)

Pope St. Leo IX, In terra pax hominibus, Chap. 11: “By passing judgment on the great See, concerning which it is not permitted any man to pass judgment, you have received anathema from all the Fathers of the venerable Councils…” (Denz. 352)

Pope St. Leo IX, In terra pax hominibus, Chap. 32: “… As the hinge while remaining immoveable opens and closes the door, so Peter and his successors have free judgment over all the Church, since no one should remove their status because ‘the highest See is judged by no one.’” (Denz. 353)

St. Robert Bellarmine, De Romano Pontifice, Book II, Chap. 29: “Just as it is licit to resist the Pontiff who attacks the body, so also is it licit to resist him who attacks souls or destroys the civil order or above all, tries to destroy the Church. I say that it is licit to resist him by not doing what he orders and by impeding the execution of his will. It is not licit, however, to judge him, to punish him, or to depose him.”

not our saints so this isn’t strong evidence.

AveChristusRex said:
In particular, Canon 1556, 1917 Code of Canon Law, On trials in general: “The First See is judged by no one.”"

see above.

AveChristusRex said:
We see here that Vigilius or any Pope who publically errors (external forum) he is ipso facto deposed of his position immediately upon his declaration of that error. St. Robert Bellarmine, De Romano Pontifice, Book II, Chapter 30: “A pope who is a manifest heretic automatically (per se) ceases to be pope and head, just as he ceases automatically to be a Christian and a member of the Church. Wherefore, he can be judged and punished by the Church. This is the teaching of all the ancient Fathers who teach that manifest heretics immediately lose all jurisdiction.” Note the last part, after Vigilius committed error, he was no longer the Pope, and thus he can be judged and punished by the Church the way the Church sees fit to punish him, however it must be done with the proceeding legal Pontiff overseeing and declaring the condemnations to be valid, which is what happened at the 5th Council.

also not how the Church functioned. heretics are only deposed after their formal deposition, not from the moment they teach error.

AveChristusRex said:
Pope Celestine I had sent a dogmatic letter to the Council that strongly condemned Nestorianism, which was read aloud at the Council and formed the foundation for the decisions made against Nestorius. Since Celestine had made his declaration, they did not need to wait, as the papal legates had been appointed by the pope to represent his authority at the council, and the Roman judgment was held to have doctrinal weight, even before the legates arrived. In The Acts of the Council of Ephesus (431 AD), Session I: "The letter of Pope Celestine was read aloud in the assembly, confirming the condemnation of Nestorius and affirming the orthodox faith in the mystery of Christ’s incarnation."

so, why send the legates if everyone already knew the dogmatic weight of the letter? that makes no sense.

AveChristusRex said:
Papal legates were present, who, as stated before, "had been appointed by the pope to represent his authority." See Canon 6 of Chalcedon (451 AD): “The most reverent Archbishop of Rome, the successor of the Apostles, has sent his legates...and they presided over the proceedings.” At Nicaea: "Pope Sylvester I’s delegates were present at the First Council of Nicaea to represent his authority and position on key issues, including the affirmation of the Nicene Creed and the condemnation of Arianism" (Ecclesiastical History of Sozomen, Book I, Chapter 16).

yeah.

AveChristusRex said:
The doctrine was not necessary for these issues, as Ecumenical Councils addressed them with the support of the papacy.

that makes no sense. everyone knows Rome is granted this role, yet the Spirit chose not to do it because He was working through Synods, and no one brought it up even at the Synods when Christians were being killed.

AveChristusRex said:
Father remains the primordial source of the Spirit’s origin, but the procession of the Spirit is not from two separate principles; it is a united principle between the Father and the Son as you said. Note, though, that the Son is the co-cause of the Spirit’s procession, as the Father and the Son are inseparably united in this action. The Holy Spirit’s procession does not come from two separate causes but from a singular principle, which is the relationship between the Father and Son, who share the same divine essence in the divine act of procession while still acknowledging that the Father is the source. Likewise, the Father is the origin, but the Son’s involvement in the Spirit’s communication/procession to the world is essential and inseparable. This is coagulated by the Eastern St. Petro Mohyla, who stated that the Eastern "through the Son" was equal to the West's "from the Son" through the Son playing a role in the Spirit’s mission and sending while keeping that the Father is the ultimate source of the Spirit.

Thus, there is no contradiction.

Bible doesn’t say this. plus, you are saying that procession is a quality of two Persons and not the Third.

AveChristusRex said:
The idea that our understanding of Original Sin and your understanding of Original Guilt is different comes from Romanides, who was totally wrong, as the disagreement is more about terminology and emphasis than about the doctrine itself. See this good video:

not correct, it’s actually St John Cassian.

AveChristusRex said:
Not at all! Provide the Councils, and I will show you.

2 Lyons in 1274

AveChristusRex said:
What I meant was that the universal church did not dogmatically state the theological distinction at that time; it was rather in the local liturgical tradition, reflecting the local doctrine at the time. Later, it was made universal.

not how doctrine works. it doesn’t start local and then grow. it’s universal always as reflected in the Liturgy. an articulation might start local, but there is no such thing as local doctrine.

AveChristusRex said:
The Filioque controversy was not explicitly addressed or condemned at Constantinople IV, and the restoration of Photius was a matter of Photius' authority and recognition of Photius as the rightful patriarch, not a theological endorsement, which was already using the filioque locally. Moreover, the Eastern Catholics are able to deny the usage of it in their liturgy, but since the two contain no contradiction, they remain fully in communion with the Holy See, which the Orthodox are able to do at any time without any theological contradiction.

it absolutely was. that was the point of the Council. the problem is what Rome says is Constantinople IV is a different council than ours. our Constantinople IV Rome initially rejected, then accepted for a century, then rejected again.

AveChristusRex · Dec 20, 2024

ArmyMatt said:
because that’s just made up. proto infallibility doesn’t make sense. it was either given by Christ or it wasn’t.

Infallibility was given by Christ, proto- meaning a form of its authority that was used at the time.

ArmyMatt said:
doesn’t say infallibility. plus, St Irenaeus opposed Rome concerning the quartodecimens. so he didn’t understand it the way you did.

With respect, of course, but if you expect every doctrine to have a specific name and that name to be specifically mentioned without any metaphors or representations in quotes, then there isn't much I can say to change your mind. On "plus, St Irenaeus opposed Rome concerning the quartodecimens" I will give you that, but the authority was well attested. If you cannot say that Irenaeus errored there, then I can't really say much; you are entitled to your own opinion.

ArmyMatt said:
and His supporters at both synods never mentioned infallibility. never even argued for it.

No one needed to argue for something that was always there.

ArmyMatt said:
again, Vigilius was excommunicated by both East and West.

A formal excommunication at a later date is acceptable, and Vigilius was excommunicated by both East and West after his reposition, still aligning with the fact that the Holy See is judged by no one.

ArmyMatt said:
not our saints so this isn’t strong evidence.

It was more on the principle of the Papacy, do you think a Pope can commit heresy in the external forum and remain the Pontiff?

ArmyMatt said:
also not how the Church functioned. heretics are only deposed after their formal deposition, not from the moment they teach error.

You misunderstand the legal aspect; though a Pope may not be flicked out of the Basilica by a comically large hand at the moment they preach error, they are deposed legally, also known as formally; they can be deposed materially at a later date if necessary.

ArmyMatt said:
so, why send the legates if everyone already knew the dogmatic weight of the letter? that makes no sense.

It was a tradition to send legates, and the legates were sent after the letter was promulgated and sent. However, Leo could not have just sent a letter and be done; he must have representatives there to tell of the whole council and represent him in case of an emergency.

ArmyMatt said:
that makes no sense. everyone knows Rome is granted this role, yet the Spirit chose not to do it because He was working through Synods, and no one brought it up even at the Synods when Christians were being killed.

The Synods did their job yes, but at times the Pontiff needed to step in and take care of things himself [i.e., if a controversy was not allowing the synod to proceed, like Chalcedon].

ArmyMatt said:
Bible doesn’t say this. plus, you are saying that procession is a quality of two Persons and not the Third.

John 15:26, "When the Advocate comes, whom I will send to you from the Father, the Spirit of truth who goes out from the Father, he will testify about me." It is clear that Christ sends the Spirit that eternally originates from the Father, but the procession of the Spirit seems to, in this verse, be a co-opted act, where the Father originates and moves 'through' the Son.

ArmyMatt said:
not correct, it’s actually St John Cassian.

Cassian was a semi-Pelagian, so I do not trust his writings on this matter.

ArmyMatt said:
2 Lyons in 1274

No. I've never heard that before, and that is simple not true [with all due respect], the Union of the Churches between Gregory X and Michael VIII ended on 29 June 1274 (the Feast of Peter and Paul, patronal feast of the popes), where Gregory celebrated Mass in St John's Church in which both sides took part, with the Western addition of the Filioque clause sung three times by the Greeks present. Truly, it was the Eastern clergy who opposed the decisions of the council, caused Patriarch Joseph to abdicate, and overthrew his successor, John Bekkos, who spent the remaining years of his life in prison in the fortress of St. Gregory writing that the east was in communion with Rome. It was the east that refused the union, the Holy See never [and has never] reputed the east.

ArmyMatt said:
not how doctrine works. it doesn’t start local and then grow. it’s universal always as reflected in the Liturgy. an articulation might start local, but there is no such thing as local doctrine.

That is what I meant, a local articulation that spread. However the idea that a local doctrine is not possible seems fishy, as we do have Eastern Catholic Churches, which do not follow the Roman Missal and some of the local articulations of Rome [the ones that are not dogmatic].

ArmyMatt said:
it absolutely was. that was the point of the Council. the problem is what Rome says is Constantinople IV is a different council than ours. our Constantinople IV Rome initially rejected, then accepted for a century, then rejected again.

Rome initially rejected the Fourth Council of Constantinople because of the political nature of the council and theological conflict between the Papacy and the Byzantines. And Photius was not excommunicated by the same Pope, as he had been excommunicated by Pope Nicholas I, but he later restored his own standing and was recognized by Rome under Pope John VIII. This is because excommunications are not infallible, and one can return to communion if he or the Pontiff [if he is given context and argument against the former's excommunication] decides they wish to reconnect.

I will ask nicely, though, if you can begin to quote your points, as I am having a hard time being able to understand where and how these positions were formed without a quote, and have to assume that you are using sourced material; nothing against you of course! I just want to have an even playing field.

Valletta · Dec 20, 2024

ArmyMatt said:
except He tells the Apostles they will be led into all truth. not some truth or as much as they can handle, but all of it.

and we do believe in doctrinal development until Pentecost. after Pentecost there is no more doctrinal development since God has perfectly revealed Himself in His Incarnate Son.

Catholics believe that the deposit of the faith ended with the death of the last Apostle. Basic truths were revealed by then, others took longer in time to be revealed.

AveChristusRex · Dec 20, 2024

Valletta said:
Catholics believe that the deposit of the faith ended with the death of the last Apostle. Basic truths were revealed by then, others took longer in time to be revealed.

Very true! I hope I am representing the Catholic position well throughout this discussion...

ArmyMatt · Dec 20, 2024

AveChristusRex said:
Infallibility was given by Christ, proto- meaning a form of its authority that was used at the time.

except we agree on the authority St Peter has that he shows in Acts. still doesn’t support infallibility.

AveChristusRex said:
With respect, of course, but if you expect every doctrine to have a specific name and that name to be specifically mentioned without any metaphors or representations in quotes, then there isn't much I can say to change your mind. On "plus, St Irenaeus opposed Rome concerning the quartodecimens" I will give you that, but the authority was well attested. If you cannot say that Irenaeus errored there, then I can't really say much; you are entitled to your own opinion.

I obviously don’t believe he erred in this instance. and while I know not everything was as clearly fleshed out in the beginning, something as important as infallibility should be there.

AveChristusRex said:
No one needed to argue for something that was always there.

well, it would at least be mentioned since a large group especially at Ephesus were ignoring what you claim was infallibility.

AveChristusRex said:
A formal excommunication at a later date is acceptable, and Vigilius was excommunicated by both East and West after his reposition, still aligning with the fact that the Holy See is judged by no one.

no, he was excommunicated by the East for not accepting the three chapters. then he accepted them after changing his mind and was excommunicated by the West. he died before he could reconcile with the West.

AveChristusRex said:
It was more on the principle of the Papacy, do you think a Pope can commit heresy in the external forum and remain the Pontiff?

yes. just like Nestorius remained the bishop of Constantinople even after he started his blasphemy.

AveChristusRex said:
You misunderstand the legal aspect; though a Pope may not be flicked out of the Basilica by a comically large hand at the moment they preach error, they are deposed legally, also known as formally; they can be deposed materially at a later date if necessary.

and that means what?

AveChristusRex said:
It was a tradition to send legates, and the legates were sent after the letter was promulgated and sent. However, Leo could not have just sent a letter and be done; he must have representatives there to tell of the whole council and represent him in case of an emergency.

no he wouldn’t. if everyone knew this was an infallible statement which, I believe according to Vatican I is above any council of bishops, there was no need for legates.

AveChristusRex said:
The Synods did their job yes, but at times the Pontiff needed to step in and take care of things himself [i.e., if a controversy was not allowing the synod to proceed, like Chalcedon].

except he never did that, especially not at Chalcedon.

AveChristusRex said:
John 15:26, "When the Advocate comes, whom I will send to you from the Father, the Spirit of truth who goes out from the Father, he will testify about me." It is clear that Christ sends the Spirit that eternally originates from the Father, but the procession of the Spirit seems to, in this verse, be a co-opted act, where the Father originates and the Son spirates.

except 2 Lyons says: We profess faithfully and devotedly that the Holy Spirit proceeds eternally from the Father and the Son, not as from two principles, but as from one principle; not by two spirations, but by one single spiration.

nowhere does it say the Father originates and the Son spirates.

AveChristusRex said:
Cassian was a semi-Pelagian, so I do not trust his writings on this matter.

be that as it may, that shows Romanides didn’t originate what you said he did.

AveChristusRex said:
No. I've never heard that before, and that is simple not true [with all due respect], the Union of the Churches between Gregory X and Michael VIII ended on 29 June 1274 (the Feast of Peter and Paul, patronal feast of the popes), where Gregory celebrated Mass in St John's Church in which both sides took part, with the Western addition of the Filioque clause sung three times by the Greeks present. Truly, it was the Eastern clergy who opposed the decisions of the council, caused Patriarch Joseph to abdicate, and overthrew his successor, John Bekkos, who spent the remaining years of his life in prison in the fortress of St. Gregory writing that the east was in communion with Rome. It was the east that refused the union, the Holy See never [and has never] reputed the east.

2 Lyons on the Supreme Trinity of the Catholic Faith: “we, wishing to close the way to such errors, with the approval of the sacred council, condemn and reprove all who presume to deny that the Holy Spirit proceeds eternally from the Father and the Son.”

AveChristusRex said:
That is what I meant, a local articulation that spread. However the idea that a local doctrine is not possible seems fishy, as we do have Eastern Catholic Churches, which do not follow the Roman Missal and some of the local articulations of Rome [the ones that are not dogmatic].

except we’re talking about something local that was spread and was rejected by many doctrinally, to include Rome for a while.

AveChristusRex said:
Rome initially rejected the Fourth Council of Constantinople because of the political nature of the council and theological conflict between the Papacy and the Byzantines. And Photius was not excommunicated by the same Pope, as he had been excommunicated by Pope Nicholas I, but he later restored his own standing and was recognized by Rome under Pope John VIII. This is because excommunications are not infallible, and one can return to communion if he or the Pontiff [if he is given context and argument against the former's excommunication] decides they wish to reconnect.

and Rome also officially accepted what we call Constantinople IV with us which condemns the Filioque as heresy.

AveChristusRex said:
I will ask nicely, though, if you can begin to quote your points, as I am having a hard time being able to understand where and how these positions were formed without a quote, and have to assume that you are using sourced material; nothing against you of course! I just want to have an even playing field.

done, and forgive me but I am doing this from my phone.

ArmyMatt · Dec 20, 2024

Valletta said:
Catholics believe that the deposit of the faith ended with the death of the last Apostle. Basic truths were revealed by then, others took longer in time to be revealed.

I know that’s what they believe. it’s one of the reasons we’re not in communion.

AveChristusRex · Dec 20, 2024

ArmyMatt said:
except we agree on the authority St Peter has that he shows in Acts. still doesn’t support infallibility.

Luke 22:24-32 says: “And there was also a strife among them, which of them should be accounted the greatest. And he said unto them, The kings of the Gentiles exercise lordship over them; and they that exercise authority upon them are called benefactors. But ye shall not be so: but he that is greatest among you, let him be as the younger; and he that is chief, as he that doth serve… And I appoint unto you a kingdom, as my Father hath appointed unto me; that ye may eat and drink at my table in my kingdom, and sit on thrones judging the twelve tribes of Israel. And the Lord said, Simon, Simon, behold, Satan hath desired to have you, that he may sift you as wheat: But I have prayed for thee, that thy faith fail not: and when thou art converted, strengthen thy brethren.” Christ says that Satan has desired to sift all the apostles in the plural, but that He has prayed for Peter [singular] that Peter’s faith will not fail.

Moreover, in the original Greek text, when Christ says, “Satan hath desired to have you,” the “you” is in the plural. Peter, the one who receives the keys of the Kingdom, also has an unfailing faith, according to the words of Christ. The word “infallible” means cannot fail; so Christ is saying that Peter's faith is infallible. Thus, Luke 22 can be considered the root of the Catholic teaching on the infallibility of the Pontiff, St. Peter's successor. So when the Pope teaches authoritatively on faith or morals to the entire Church (i.e., from the Chair of Peter), Christ will not let that teaching fail.

ArmyMatt said:
well, it would at least be mentioned since a large group especially at Ephesus were ignoring what you claim was infallibility.

Well, at the Council, St. Cyril of Alexandria stated: "It is common knowledge that our holy father Celestine, Bishop of the Church of Rome, wrote letters to your piety concerning the faith... let us act as approved by the Apostolic See." Pope Clement, in 96 A.D., also stated: "If, however, any shall disobey the words spoken by Him [Christ] through us [Rome], let them understand that they will entangle themselves in transgression and no small danger."

ArmyMatt said:
no, he was excommunicated by the East for not accepting the three chapters. then he accepted them after changing his mind and was excommunicated by the West. he died before he could reconcile with the West.

There is no evidence of a formal, binding excommunication of Vigilius by the Western Church. And why or to what degree Vigilius was allegedly “excommunicated” from the Council’s view is unclear. When the Council issued their sentence, notice where Vigilius fits in: "Since it is manifest to all the faithful that whenever any question arises concerning the faith, not only the impious man himself is condemned, but also he who, when he has the power to correct impiety in others, neglects to do so." The sidenote of Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers says the latter man, not the one who is “impious,” but rather the one who has the power to correct impiety but does not, is a reference to Vigilius. This makes sense considering how the Council’s sentence continues: "When, therefore, we saw that the followers of Nestorius were attempting to introduce their impiety into the church of God through the impious Theodore, who was bishop of Mopsuestia, and through his impious writings; and moreover through those things which Theodoret impiously wrote, and through the wicked epistle which is said to have been written by Ibas to Maris the Persian, moved by all these sights we rose up for the correction of what was going on, and assembled in this royal city called thither by the will of God and the bidding of the most religious Emperor. And because it happened that the most religious Vigilius stopping in this royal city, was present at all the discussions with regard to the Three Chapters, and had often condemned them orally and in writing, nevertheless afterwards he gave his consent in writing to be present at the Council and examine together with us the Three Chapters."

Again, “the most religious” Vigilius is clearly distinguished from the three heretics as one who condemned them but apparently broke his promise to attend the Council. Of course, none of these legal proceedings on how or whether to judge after death is a matter of dogma, so it can be fair to say Vigilius had a right to voice concern. In fact, the Council in all its condemnations of Ibas made it clear the heretical letter was only alleged to be from him, which is hardly sufficient grounds to condemn the man and name Ibas himself. In the 14 Condemnations the Council issued next, the name Vigilius is absent, while a host of other heretics, including an alleged condemnation of Origen (mentioning only his name in a list, no explanation), and the Three Chapters (by name and explanation) are clearly anathematized. THEN, according to the Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, six months after the Council, Vigilius decided to accept the Council and sends a letter to the Patriarch of Constantinople affirming his decision. In his letter, Vigilius states he reconsidered the evidence and saw just how severe the errors of the Three Chapters were, and thus approves of the Council’s decisions. The Catholic Encyclopedia states this is because he was given poor translations in the earlier times.

I would look at this documentary about the matter, it is about an hour so I would suggest it if you have time (two notes: one that these individuals are very wack and at times blatantly wrong, however this documentary I think holds some good points. Second is that they are not friendly to Orthodoxy, so some inults are thrown, I rebuke these and consider this to be childish, but again, good proofs lie in some pedals within the fields of their nonsense:

This skips the history and primacy, going straight into infallibility.

ArmyMatt said:
yes. just like Nestorius remained the bishop of Constantinople even after he started his blasphemy.

Due to the absence of ‘de fide’ and ‘ex cathedra’ statements, it has been historical consensus that a Patriarch can err on matters of doctrine and not be deposed by notoriety of fact: "Orthodox theology is essentially patristic and does not define dogmas in the same way as the Roman Catholic Church. The tradition of the Fathers holds sway in the Orthodox Church, and doctrines are received and taught in the consensus of the Church without the need for dogmatic proclamations like ‘de fide’ definitions."

Thus the Patriarchate of Constantinople cannot be complicit in the same rites of validation that the Bishop of Rome abides by; this is pertaining to, among other things, the fact that in no time in history has the Patriarchate of Constantinople been given rights equal to that of Rome: "Because it is new Rome, the bishop of Constantinople is to enjoy the privileges of honour after the bishop of Rome."

The Eastern Church has a noticeable absence of de fide, that is, the absence of operation under a framework of infallible dogmatic definitions. Georges Florovsky is quoted as saying in regards to de fide: "Orthodox theology is essentially patristic and does not define dogmas in the same way as the Roman Catholic Church. The tradition of the Fathers holds sway in the Orthodox Church, and doctrines are received and taught in the consensus of the Church without the need for dogmatic proclamations like ‘de fide’ definitions."

Thus, due to the absence of de fide and ex cathedra statements, it has been a historical consensus that a Patriarch can err on matters of doctrine and not be deposed by notoriety of fact. Notorious heretics either by the notoriety of law (i.e., through official warnings, a declaration, a canonical process) or by the notoriety of fact (i.e., without any canonical warnings or a declaration). Note the differences:

Notoriety of Law refers to a declaration of excommunication passed by a canonical judge or experienced confession (i.e., a declaration or process).
Notoriety of Fact refers to when the offending action is publicly known, and its sinful or imputable character is also publicly known.

For example, the Patriarch and notorious heretic Nestorius of Constantinople was deposed by the Council of Ephesus in 431. Still, the council's formal decision led to his deposition [meaning, notoriety of law over fact], not the nature of his declarations. I quote Canon 74 of the Apostolic Canons (recognized in the East) on this point: “If any bishop has been accused of anything by men worthy of credit, he must be summoned by the bishops; and if he appears, and confesses, or is convicted, a suitable punishment must be inflicted upon him. But if when he is summoned he does not attend, let him be summoned a second time, two bishops being sent to him, for that purpose. [If even then he will not attend, let him be summoned a third time, two bishops being again sent to him.] But if even then he shall disregard the summons and not come, let the synod pronounce such sentence against him as appears right, that he may not seem to profit by avoiding judgment.”

In the Eastern Church, any doctrine of error from the See of Constantinople is ‘abusus non tollit usum,’ meaning ‘the misuse of something does not eliminate the possibility of its correct use.’ This is because without ‘de fide’ or ‘ex cathedra,’ no statement from the See of Constantinople is universally binding and thus does not constitute a universal ‘heresy’ but a mere local error. Note that even councils have been accepted in this way. Note John Meyendorff: "The Orthodox church recognizes seven ecumenical councils... but considers that the decrees of several other, later councils also reflect the same original faith." In the East, a cleric can believe something that either Church does not share, but that does not mean he should profess it publicly. Note that if a priest takes the Hyperphotian position that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father alone [with no action of the Son], then that priest is guilty of error.

This is different than with the Pope, who can excommunicate himself on notoriety of fact regardless of synodal declaration because of the prevalence of de fide and ex cathedra, which is a form to speak on “latæ sententiæ” excommunication, which generally means ‘automatic excommunication’ which itself means excommunication that does not need an ‘act’ excommunicating them. This is found in Canon 2197 of the 1917 Code of Canon Law: “A Crime is public: (1) if it is already commonly known or the circumstances are such as to lead to the conclusion that it can and will easily become so; (2) Notorious by notoriety of law, [if it is] after a sentence by a competent judge that renders the matter an abjudicated thing, or after a confession by the offender made in court in accord with Canon 1750; (3) Notorious by notoriety of fact, if it is publicly known and was committed under such circumstances that no clever evasion is possible and no legal excuse could excuse [the act] (4) Occult, if it is not public; materially occult, if the delict is hidden; formally occult, if imputability [is not known]…”

Furthermore, it was cemented by Pope Martin V in his bull ‘Inter Cunctas': “… the aforementioned Synod… seeing that the same John Wycliffe and John Hus and Jerome were, among other things, pertinaciously attempting to believe, hold, preach and teach many things in a rash and damnable manner… and viewing them as pertinacious and obstinate heretics already separated from the communion of the faithful, physically expelled them from God’s house and declared them as having already been spiritually expelled; and it established and decreed several other useful and salutary pre-emptive measures in this regard…” He thus distinguishes between people who are not part of the faithful but, for some time, still were in the physical structures of the Church. This is the tradition of the Latin Church and is shared in some respects in the Eastern Church.

ArmyMatt said:
no he wouldn’t. if everyone knew this was an infallible statement which, I believe according to Vatican I is above any council of bishops, there was no need for legates.

The attendance of legates did not question the infallibility of the Tome; rather, the "emergency" I was speaking of was an emergency such as a schism. Moreover, they were there to document the event from the Roman perspective.

ArmyMatt said:
except he never did that, especially not at Chalcedon.

At Chalcedon, Leo's tome was one of the seven infallible statements in history, this was because the Synod could not decide on the matters of debate, and thus Leo used his authority to decide the statement in their stead. All Councils must have been accepted by the Pope for them to be binding. From Pope Gregory: "I, however, acknowledge that all Councils which the Holy Roman Church has received should be venerated... but those which she has not received, I reject with my whole soul." (Epistles, Book 1, Letter 24).

ArmyMatt said:
except 2 Lyons says: We profess faithfully and devotedly that the Holy Spirit proceeds eternally from the Father and the Son, not as from two principles, but as from one principle; not by two spirations, but by one single spiration.

You are correct, and I made a mistake; please forgive me. I was trying to find a word to describe the act of moving 'through', which I assumed would be spirate because of its definition of 'breath.' Let me edit it to make a little more sense: John 15:26, "When the Advocate comes, whom I will send to you from the Father, the Spirit of truth who goes out from the Father, he will testify about me." It is clear that Christ sends the Spirit that eternally originates from the Father, but the procession of the Spirit seems to, in this verse, be a co-opted act, where the Father originates and moves 'through' the Son.

ArmyMatt said:
be that as it may, that shows Romanides didn’t originate what you said he did.

Fair point, but it was resurrected by Romanides from its antiquity.

ArmyMatt said:
2 Lyons on the Supreme Trinity of the Catholic Faith: “we, wishing to close the way to such errors, with the approval of the sacred council, condemn and reprove all who presume to deny that the Holy Spirit proceeds eternally from the Father and the Son.”

If "through the Son" is understood in the sense that the Son participates eternally in the Spirit's procession without being a separate or subordinate principle, it aligns with Lyon's teaching. The differences in terminology do not necessarily equate to differences in doctrine; and the Orthodox [to my knowledge] accept the phrasing of "through the Son," which would correctly align with Lyon.

ArmyMatt said:
except we’re talking about something local that was spread and was rejected by many doctrinally, to include Rome for a while.

The fact that a theological idea was debated or even rejected in certain contexts does not inherently disqualify it from later being clarified and embraced by the Church. The Church has a history of careful discernment, as seen with the Nicene Creed. Initially, Arian sympathizers and others resisted Nicene orthodoxy, yet it was eventually affirmed as dogmatic. However, Rome’s later acceptance is a reflection of the doctrinal unity and fidelity to Apostolic Tradition.

ArmyMatt said:
and Rome also officially accepted what we call Constantinople IV with us which condemns the Filioque as heresy.

While Rome initially sent legates to Constantinople, the council was not ultimately recognized as ecumenical. John VIII supported the council's reconciliation efforts with Photius and agreed to a temporary compromise on the Creed without the filioque, but this does not equate to Rome officially endorsing the council as ecumenical or accepting its specific rulings. While Rome sought unity, it did not concede to every aspect of the council's rulings.

ArmyMatt said:
done, and forgive me but I am doing this from my phone.

All good! Thank you for taking the advice, you are a true Christian!

ArmyMatt · Dec 20, 2024

AveChristusRex said:
Luke 22:24-32 says: “And there was also a strife among them, which of them should be accounted the greatest. And he said unto them, The kings of the Gentiles exercise lordship over them; and they that exercise authority upon them are called benefactors. But ye shall not be so: but he that is greatest among you, let him be as the younger; and he that is chief, as he that doth serve… And I appoint unto you a kingdom, as my Father hath appointed unto me; that ye may eat and drink at my table in my kingdom, and sit on thrones judging the twelve tribes of Israel. And the Lord said, Simon, Simon, behold, Satan hath desired to have you, that he may sift you as wheat: But I have prayed for thee, that thy faith fail not: and when thou art converted, strengthen thy brethren.” Christ says that Satan has desired to sift all the apostles in the plural, but that He has prayed for Peter [singular] that Peter’s faith will not fail.

Moreover, in the original Greek text, when Christ says, “Satan hath desired to have you,” the “you” is in the plural. Peter, the one who receives the keys of the Kingdom, also has an unfailing faith, according to the words of Christ. The word “infallible” means cannot fail; so Christ is saying that Peter's faith is infallible. Thus, Luke 22 can be considered the root of the Catholic teaching on the infallibility of the Pontiff, St. Peter's successor. So when the Pope teaches authoritatively on faith or morals to the entire Church (i.e., from the Chair of Peter), Christ will not let that teaching fail.

if Peter’s faith is infallible, Paul would not have rebuked him to his face. plus, this still says nothing about infallibility or that it only exists in Rome.

AveChristusRex said:
Well, at the Council, St. Cyril of Alexandria stated: "It is common knowledge that our holy father Celestine, Bishop of the Church of Rome, wrote letters to your piety concerning the faith... let us act as approved by the Apostolic See." Pope Clement, in 96 A.D., also stated: "If, however, any shall disobey the words spoken by Him [Christ] through us [Rome], let them understand that they will entangle themselves in transgression and no small danger."

which could be read as you follow correct believing bishops, to include Rome. still doesn’t defend infallibility.

AveChristusRex said:
There is no evidence of a formal, binding excommunication of Vigilius by the Western Church. And why or to what degree Vigilius was allegedly “excommunicated” from the Council’s view is unclear. When the Council issued their sentence, notice where Vigilius fits in: "Since it is manifest to all the faithful that whenever any question arises concerning the faith, not only the impious man himself is condemned, but also he who, when he has the power to correct impiety in others, neglects to do so." The sidenote of Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers says the latter man, not the one who is “impious,” but rather the one who has the power to correct impiety but does not, is a reference to Vigilius. This makes sense considering how the Council’s sentence continues: "When, therefore, we saw that the followers of Nestorius were attempting to introduce their impiety into the church of God through the impious Theodore, who was bishop of Mopsuestia, and through his impious writings; and moreover through those things which Theodoret impiously wrote, and through the wicked epistle which is said to have been written by Ibas to Maris the Persian, moved by all these sights we rose up for the correction of what was going on, and assembled in this royal city called thither by the will of God and the bidding of the most religious Emperor. And because it happened that the most religious Vigilius stopping in this royal city, was present at all the discussions with regard to the Three Chapters, and had often condemned them orally and in writing, nevertheless afterwards he gave his consent in writing to be present at the Council and examine together with us the Three Chapters."

Again, “the most religious” Vigilius is clearly distinguished from the three heretics as one who condemned them but apparently broke his promise to attend the Council. Of course, none of these legal proceedings on how or whether to judge after death is a matter of dogma, so it can be fair to say Vigilius had a right to voice concern. In fact, the Council in all its condemnations of Ibas made it clear the heretical letter was only alleged to be from him, which is hardly sufficient grounds to condemn the man and name Ibas himself. In the 14 Condemnations the Council issued next, the name Vigilius is absent, while a host of other heretics, including an alleged condemnation of Origen (mentioning only his name in a list, no explanation), and the Three Chapters (by name and explanation) are clearly anathematized. THEN, according to the Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, six months after the Council, Vigilius decided to accept the Council and sends a letter to the Patriarch of Constantinople affirming his decision. In his letter, Vigilius states he reconsidered the evidence and saw just how severe the errors of the Three Chapters were, and thus approves of the Council’s decisions. The Catholic Encyclopedia states this is because he was given poor translations in the earlier times.

there actually is evidence as I remember from my Church history course in seminary. but even if not, if your understanding is true then it never should have happened in the East.

AveChristusRex said:
Due to the absence of ‘de fide’ and ‘ex cathedra’ statements, it has been historical consensus that a Patriarch can err on matters of doctrine and not be deposed by notoriety of fact: "Orthodox theology is essentially patristic and does not define dogmas in the same way as the Roman Catholic Church. The tradition of the Fathers holds sway in the Orthodox Church, and doctrines are received and taught in the consensus of the Church without the need for dogmatic proclamations like ‘de fide’ definitions."

Thus the Patriarchate of Constantinople cannot be complicit in the same rites of validation that the Bishop of Rome abides by; this is pertaining to, among other things, the fact that in no time in history has the Patriarchate of Constantinople been given rights equal to that of Rome: "Because it is new Rome, the bishop of Constantinople is to enjoy the privileges of honour after the bishop of Rome."

The Eastern Church has a noticeable absence of de fide, that is, the absence of operation under a framework of infallible dogmatic definitions. Georges Florovsky is quoted as saying in regards to de fide: "Orthodox theology is essentially patristic and does not define dogmas in the same way as the Roman Catholic Church. The tradition of the Fathers holds sway in the Orthodox Church, and doctrines are received and taught in the consensus of the Church without the need for dogmatic proclamations like ‘de fide’ definitions."

Thus, due to the absence of de fide and ex cathedra statements, it has been a historical consensus that a Patriarch can err on matters of doctrine and not be deposed by notoriety of fact. Notorious heretics either by the notoriety of law (i.e., through official warnings, a declaration, a canonical process) or by the notoriety of fact (i.e., without any canonical warnings or a declaration). Note the differences:

Notoriety of Law refers to a declaration of excommunication passed by a canonical judge or experienced confession (i.e., a declaration or process).

Notoriety of Fact refers to when the offending action is publicly known, and its sinful or imputable character is also publicly known.

For example, the Patriarch and notorious heretic Nestorius of Constantinople was deposed by the Council of Ephesus in 431. Still, the council's formal decision led to his deposition [meaning, notoriety of law over fact], not the nature of his declarations. I quote Canon 74 of the Apostolic Canons (recognized in the East) on this point: “If any bishop has been accused of anything by men worthy of credit, he must be summoned by the bishops; and if he appears, and confesses, or is convicted, a suitable punishment must be inflicted upon him. But if when he is summoned he does not attend, let him be summoned a second time, two bishops being sent to him, for that purpose. [If even then he will not attend, let him be summoned a third time, two bishops being again sent to him.] But if even then he shall disregard the summons and not come, let the synod pronounce such sentence against him as appears right, that he may not seem to profit by avoiding judgment.”

In the Eastern Church, any doctrine of error from the See of Constantinople is ‘abusus non tollit usum,’ meaning ‘the misuse of something does not eliminate the possibility of its correct use.’ This is because without ‘de fide’ or ‘ex cathedra,’ no statement from the See of Constantinople is universally binding and thus does not constitute a universal ‘heresy’ but a mere local error. Note that even councils have been accepted in this way. Note John Meyendorff: "The Orthodox church recognizes seven ecumenical councils... but considers that the decrees of several other, later councils also reflect the same original faith." In the East, a cleric can believe something that either Church does not share, but that does not mean he should profess it publicly. Note that if a priest takes the Hyperphotian position that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father alone [with no action of the Son], then that priest is guilty of error.

This is different than with the Pope, who can excommunicate himself on notoriety of fact regardless of synodal declaration because of the prevalence of de fide and ex cathedra, which is a form to speak on “latæ sententiæ” excommunication, which generally means ‘automatic excommunication’ which itself means excommunication that does not need an ‘act’ excommunicating them. This is found in Canon 2197 of the 1917 Code of Canon Law: “A Crime is public: (1) if it is already commonly known or the circumstances are such as to lead to the conclusion that it can and will easily become so; (2) Notorious by notoriety of law, [if it is] after a sentence by a competent judge that renders the matter an abjudicated thing, or after a confession by the offender made in court in accord with Canon 1750; (3) Notorious by notoriety of fact, if it is publicly known and was committed under such circumstances that no clever evasion is possible and no legal excuse could excuse [the act] (4) Occult, if it is not public; materially occult, if the delict is hidden; formally occult, if imputability [is not known]…”

Furthermore, it was cemented by Pope Martin V in his bull ‘Inter Cunctas': “… the aforementioned Synod… seeing that the same John Wycliffe and John Hus and Jerome were, among other things, pertinaciously attempting to believe, hold, preach and teach many things in a rash and damnable manner… and viewing them as pertinacious and obstinate heretics already separated from the communion of the faithful, physically expelled them from God’s house and declared them as having already been spiritually expelled; and it established and decreed several other useful and salutary pre-emptive measures in this regard…” He thus distinguishes between people who are not part of the faithful but, for some time, still were in the physical structures of the Church. This is the tradition of the Latin Church and is shared in some respects in the Eastern Church.

I don’t see the point in this post. referencing Popes and statements after the Schism don’t help your point.

AveChristusRex said:
The attendance of legates did not question the infallibility of the Tome; rather, the "emergency" I was speaking of was an emergency such as a schism. Moreover, they were there to document the event from the Roman perspective.

why would there be a schism if everyone knew this was infallible? why didn’t the supporters who were already there just point that out?

AveChristusRex said:
At Chalcedon, Leo's tome was one of the seven infallible statements in history, this was because the Synod could not decide on the matters of debate, and thus Leo used his authority to decide the statement in their stead. All Councils must have been accepted by the Pope for them to be binding. From Pope Gregory: "I, however, acknowledge that all Councils which the Holy Roman Church has received should be venerated... but those which she has not received, I reject with my whole soul." (Epistles, Book 1, Letter 24).

except even his allies at Chalcedon didn’t view his tome that way.

AveChristusRex said:
You are correct, and I made a mistake; please forgive me. I was trying to find a word to describe the act of moving 'through', which I assumed would be spirate because of its definition of 'breath.' Let me edit it to make a little more sense: John 15:26, "When the Advocate comes, whom I will send to you from the Father, the Spirit of truth who goes out from the Father, he will testify about me." It is clear that Christ sends the Spirit that eternally originates from the Father, but the procession of the Spirit seems to, in this verse, be a co-opted act, where the Father originates and moves 'through' the Son.

not Biblical.

AveChristusRex said:
Fair point, but it was resurrected by Romanides from its antiquity.

no, we never left it. Fr John was just ubervocal about it. it’s in our service on how to receive other Christians which predates Fr John.

AveChristusRex said:
If "through the Son" is understood in the sense that the Son participates eternally in the Spirit's procession without being a separate or subordinate principle, it aligns with Lyon's teaching. The differences in terminology do not necessarily equate to differences in doctrine; and the Orthodox [to my knowledge] accept the phrasing of "through the Son," which would correctly align with Lyon.

except we don’t believe through the Son (which we accept) means is in any way the principle of the Spirit’s procession. the one principle is the one Father from Whom the Spirit proceeds.

AveChristusRex said:
The fact that a theological idea was debated or even rejected in certain contexts does not inherently disqualify it from later being clarified and embraced by the Church. The Church has a history of careful discernment, as seen with the Nicene Creed. Initially, Arian sympathizers and others resisted Nicene orthodoxy, yet it was eventually affirmed as dogmatic. However, Rome’s later acceptance is a reflection of the doctrinal unity and fidelity to Apostolic Tradition.

except there’s never been a time when the whole Church rejected something as true, only to change later. and especially not for a century.

AveChristusRex said:
While Rome initially sent legates to Constantinople, the council was not ultimately recognized as ecumenical. John VIII supported the council's reconciliation efforts with Photius and agreed to a temporary compromise on the Creed without the filioque, but this does not equate to Rome officially endorsing the council as ecumenical or accepting its specific rulings. While Rome sought unity, it did not concede to every aspect of the council's rulings.

it actually was. there is actually a movement in Orthodoxy to recognize our Constantinople IV as ecumenical for that very reason.

AveChristusRex said:
All good! Thank you for taking the advice, you are a true Christian!

thank God!

AveChristusRex · Dec 20, 2024

ArmyMatt said:
if Peter’s faith is infallible, Paul would not have rebuked him to his face. plus, this still says nothing about infallibility or that it only exists in Rome.

A few points on this (from Did St Paul really rebuke St Peter? ... Maybe not!):

Paul mentions "Peter" and "Cephas" in the same context, suggesting they are two people: "On the contrary, when they saw that I had been entrusted with the gospel to the uncircumcised, just as Peter had been entrusted with the gospel to the circumcised (for he who worked through Peter for his apostolic ministry to the circumcised worked also through me for mine to the Gentiles), and when James and Cephas and John, who seemed to be pillars, perceived the grace that was given to me, they gave the right hand of fellowship to Barnabas and me, that we should go to the Gentiles and they to the circumcised. Only, they asked us to remember the poor, the very thing I was eager to do. But when Cephas came to Antioch, I opposed him to his face, because he stood condemned. For before certain men came from James, he was eating with the Gentiles; but when they came he drew back and separated himself, fearing the circumcision party." Why is Paul shifting from "Peter" to "Cephas," especially in the same breath? This is very odd if Peter and Cephas are the same person.
Cephas seems to rank below that of an Apostle given the texts his name appears in:
- 1 Corinthians 1:12, 3:22 list the order of Paul, then Apollos, then Cephas.
- 1 Corinthians 9:5 says "the other apostles and the brothers of the Lord and Cephas."
- 1 Corinthians 15:5 says Jesus "appeared to Cephas, then to the twelve." The idea of putting Cephas after Apollos and 'outside' the number of the twelve suggests Cephas was a high ranking Christian who helped Paul and Apollos, but who was also not Peter.
The name Cephas only appears 7 or 8 times in the New Testament, while the name Peter appears 161 times: If Peter also (regularly) went by the name Cephas, then the New Testament did an odd job of making this clear. In fact, why use the name Cephas at all? Though John 1:42 does say that Peter was named Cephas, the text says that this translates as Petros (Peter). The use of Peter rather than Cephas was precisely because "Peter" was a Greek name, which was the common language, which was precisely so that the people would know he was "The Rock" (they wouldn't have known what Cephas meant). This is why many people who migrate to America change their name to an American-sounding name, and this new American-sounding name is what the public knows them as.
There were some in the early church who said Cephas of Galatians 2:11 was not Peter the Apostle: The first church historian, Eusebius of Caecarea (325AD), said the following: [Clement of Alexandria] says that Cephas was one of the seventy disciples, a man who bore the same name as the apostle Peter, and the one concerning whom Paul says, "When Cephas came to Antioch I withstood him to his face" (Church History 1.12.2). Though only a minority of Fathers have seen Peter and Cephas as separate individuals, the earliest Father to make this claim was Clement of Alexandria around 200 AD. He says that the Cephas of Galatians 2:9,11 was one of the 70 disciples (Lk 10:1) rather than Peter the Apostle. This is significant because it shows there is a very old tradition behind this claim, even if unpopular.
Peter's attitude towards the Gentiles makes it highly unlikely that he would ever succumb to Judaizing: Peter is described as a radically changed man after Pentecost. He is seen in Acts as full of the Holy Spirit and mightily proclaiming the Gospel, even suffering persecution from the Jews for doing so. In fact, Peter was the first person entrusted by God to bring the Gentiles to the faith, which was confirmed repeatedly by God (Acts 10-11). In Acts 11:1-3, the Jews confronted Peter for "simply" entering a Gentile's home, but Peter stood firm about how the Gentiles were accepted by God and that everyone should embrace them. If Peter was ever going to cave into Jewish pressure, this would have been the moment. But what about Peter's character closer to the time of the Jerusalem Council of Acts 15? If the Incident came after the Council, then this means Peter completely repudiated his own testimony at the Council and even contradicted the spirit of the Council. That doesn't seem likely, since if Peter was not afraid of Judaizers in Jerusalem before the entire Church, then why be afraid of them later on in Antioch? And if the Incident had taken place prior to the Council, then Peter's testimony (Acts 15:7-11) would have been hypocritical and a joke. Thus, it is highly unlikely that Peter ever succumbed to Judaizing.
There is no indication that Peter was in Antioch with Paul at the time of the Incident. The book of Acts makes no mention that Peter and Paul were in Antioch at the same time. This is a significant detail for Luke to omit if Peter really was there. In fact, the details Luke does give suggests that Peter was in Jerusalem at the time when the Incident took place. A key clue comes from Acts 15:1-4. It is certain that Acts 15:1 is speaking of the Incident, with Acts 15:2 showing that Paul and Barnabas traveled to Jerusalem to speak with the Apostles on this matter. If Peter was in Antioch at that time, then surely Peter would have been mentioned accompanying Paul and Barnabas back to Jerusalem.

I don't think it's enough to say that because Peter was Cephas in John 1:42 then we can just carry this over to Galatians 2. But the mention of Cephas sandwiched between the two Apostles James and John in Galatians 2:9 is probably the main reason why people have though he must be Peter. Though it is not impossible, it wouldn't make sense to sandwich a non-Apostle "Cephas" between two actual Apostles. So this must be addressed. The first detail to consider is that perhaps this James and John were not two of the Twelve Apostles. This "James" could not have been James son of Zebedee (since he was slain by Herod, Acts 12:1-2), meaning he most likely was James son of Alphaeus, the only other James we know of (Acts 1:13). On the other hand, some in Church history have thought that the "James, the Lord's brother" mentioned in Galatians 1:18-19 was not James Alphaeus, but rather a new (third) James, and that he was the James who was mentioned in Galatians 2:9. If this latter case is true, then "James" is not one of the Twelve Apostles, and thus "Cephas" should not be seen as one of the Twelve Apostles either. But if the James in question is son of Alphaeus (who was one of the Twelve), then the matter comes down to examining who "John" is.

As for the identity of "John," up through Acts 8, the multiple references of "John" most certainly refer to the Apostle John, son of Zebedee (and brother of James). But from Acts 12 onward, a transition takes place. John son of Zebedee is never explicitly mentioned from there on, and instead a new John begins to appear, and he takes an active role with Paul and Barnabas (Acts 12:12, 25; 13:5, 13; 15:37-39). He is repeatedly referred to as "John, who's other name was Mark," who was also the cousin of Barnabas (Col 4:10; 2 Tim 4:11; Philem 1:24). This would suggest that the "John" of Galatians 2:9 is John-Mark, while identifying him as John the Apostle would be complete assumption. So even if James son of Alphaeus was the James in question, there is reasonable doubt about this John's apostolicity, which means the three men of Galatians 2:9 should not be assumed to be three of the Twelve Apostles. The second detail to consider is the context surrounding these three men.
The ordering of "James, Cephas, and John" is interesting given that Peter is always mentioned first in every list of the Apostles. The ordering of names often signifies rank, so this text comes off as suggesting James is in some sense above Cephas. While many would point to this text suggesting that this James did in fact supplant Peter's primacy, that's quite uncalled for and unsubstantiated. More likely this signifies that Cephas was not Peter. The same verse says that these three men were "reputed to be pillars," which is also interesting. Many have read this as suggesting that James, Peter, and John were high-ranking Apostles among the Twelve. While that reading has merit, it seems a bit superfluous given that the mere singling out of three Apostles would in itself signify their superiority. But if these three men are not part of the Twelve, then "reputing them as pillars" would make a lot of sense because the audience would need to know these men held "clout" in Jerusalem.

Lastly, the actions of "James, Cephas, and John" are worth examining: "On the contrary, when they saw that I [Paul] had been entrusted with the gospel to the uncircumcised, just as Peter had been entrusted with the gospel to the circumcised, and when James and Cephas and John, who seemed to be pillars, perceived the grace that was given to me, they gave the right hand of fellowship to Barnabas and me, that we should go to the Gentiles and they to the circumcised" (Gal 2:7-9; verse 8 was omitted to [hopefully] assist with clarity). The "they" in verse 7 must be those in Jerusalem who Paul says were "reputed to be influential" (Gal 2:1,6) - using similar language as "reputed to be pillars" in 2:9 - and who recognized Paul had one mission while Peter had another. This passage is somewhat confusing since it can be rendered differently, but if Peter is Cephas then the text would be saying: "When the reputable leaders recognized my divine mission was to the Gentiles and Peter's divine mission was to the Jews - and when James, Peter, and John also recognized my divine mission to the Gentiles and Peter to the Jews - we all decided to unite and partition the Gospel duties, sending me to the Gentiles and James, Peter, and John to the Jews." In other words, everyone already recognized the Gospel was partitioned by divine decree between Peter and Paul, so it's absurd to think Peter and Paul had to unite and even more absurd to say this union resulted in a partition of already partituted Gospel duties. The only way this verse makes sense is if it is saying Paul, Barnabas, James, Cephas, and John, all went to Antioch but had different targets when they were up there. Knowing the time of the events of Galatians 2:9-11 will also help determine whether it makes sense to see Cephas as Peter.

It seems that when Paul says "before certain men came from James, he [Cephas] was eating with the Gentiles" (Gal 2:11), Paul is referring to the same incident that James wrote about in the Council's Letter to Antioch: "we have heard that some persons have gone out from us and troubled you with words, unsettling your minds, although we gave them no instructions" (Acts 15:24). That incident must be that of Acts 15:1-5, shortly after Paul returned to Antioch to tell them the success of bringing Gentiles into the Church (Acts 14:25-27). This is confirmed by Galatians 2:1-3, which speaks of Paul and Barnabas going to Jerusalem to settle the issue by the Apostles (Acts 15:1-5). (An important detail about Galatians 2:2-3 shows that Titus was not forced to be circumcised in Jerusalem, proving to Paul that Judaizing wasn't even a problem there.) With that in mind, when Paul says "they gave the right hand of fellowship to Barnabas and me" (Galatians 2:9), this receiving Barnabas' and the others' friendship must have taken place between Paul's conversion (Acts 9) and Acts 15:1.
The first time Barnabas meets Paul is in Acts 9:26-30, but this does not seem to be what Galatians 2:9b is talking about, since there is no indication the Gentiles had come into the Church yet (which didn't happen until Acts 10-11). So the window of time encompassing Galatians 2:9-11 must be between Acts 11-14. Acts 11:19-26 appears to be the first time the Gentiles enter the Church of Antioch, which is followed by the Church in Jerusalem sending Barnabas to Antioch to track down Paul. This means the designating of Barnabas as a companion to Paul is what Acts 11:22-26 refers to. Interestingly, in Acts 11:27-30 it says a famine hit, which called for the Christians elsewhere to collect alms for the Christians in Jerusalem. This fits with Galatians 2:10 about "remembering the poor" (cf 1 Cor 16:1-3). So Galatians 2:9-10 seems to be well accounted for in Acts 11:19-30.
An important detail to take away from here is that Acts 11:22 simply says 'the church at Jerusalem' sent Barnabas to be Paul's companion, with no specific mention of the Apostles "James, Peter, and John" doing so. It is also worth noting that John-Mark was in Jerusalem during the Acts 11:22-26 event (Acts 12:12, 25), which fits with Galatians 2:9. And even though John-Mark traveled with Paul and Barnabas for a while, he was back in Jerusalem when the incident of Acts 15:1-5 took place (Acts 13:13-14; 15:36-39), supporting Galatians 2:11 which only mentions Cephas coming to Antioch. These details further strengthen the case that "John" of Galatians 2:9 is "John-Mark."

I feel a very good Biblical case can be made supporting the notion that Peter was not Cephas. The transition from "Peter" to "Cephas" in Galatians 2 is the first strong clue, followed by the fact Peter's character described in Acts is very robust and Luke makes no mention of a serious gaff. If we take it that 1 Corinthians was written after Galatians, this would mean the 4 references to "Cephas," not in a way that would identify him with Peter, means Cephas accepted Paul's rebuke and became a companion of Paul's missionary work. On the flip side, there isn't even any solid evidence in favor of identifying the two, and the main argument in favor comes from the "James, Cephas, and John" reference that has long simply been assumed to be the three Apostles.

ArmyMatt said:
which could be read as you follow correct believing bishops, to include Rome. still doesn’t defend infallibility.

To be fair, you could read many quotes different ways, but the context of the quote is that St. Cyril specifically sought Pope Celestine’s approval and authority. Moreover, the historical reality of Clement's quote is that Clement, as Bishop of Rome, was intervening in a dispute in Corinth, which was outside his immediate jurisdiction. You also mentioned Quartodeciman, in which Pope Victor I intervened; another example is Pope Damasus I, who, in his time, was the individual to affirm the Nicene Creed.

(1/2)

AveChristusRex · Dec 20, 2024

ArmyMatt said:
there actually is evidence as I remember from my Church history course in seminary. but even if not, if your understanding is true then it never should have happened in the East.

On "if your understanding is true then it never should have happened in the East," history is never perfect, and at times such as Vigilius's time (in which he was erroneously imprisoned by the Emperor in the cusp of the debacle) some considerations need to be made, as the video said, "this was not the time infallibility shown its brightest, but it was there." The east made a drastic decision in condemning Vigilius, as they were influenced by the pressure from the Emperor, who dragged Vigilius by his feet out of the cathedral and to his prison. They did not want that to happen to them, so they abided by every command the Emperor made, including condemning Vigilius though they knew it was not their place. Particularly noticeable is the fact that they immediately removed the condemnation after the Emperor was unable to persuade them, and this retraction of the condemnation was even prior to Vigilius's decision on the Three Chapters was known (during his time of deliberation, which the Emperor thought to be a condoning of the error).

ArmyMatt said:
I don’t see the point in this post. referencing Popes and statements after the Schism don’t help your point.

The other members of the Pentarchy did not have the same responsibility and indwelling as the Petrine See did, by your own admission. Thus, because Christ only promised Peter and his See (Rome) that his faith would always be infallible, no other patriarchate was entitled to infallibility, so they could error as they wished, with it not immediately excommunicating them. However, if the Pontiff errors, then he breaks the promise of Christ to St. Peter and immediately ceases to be Pope, as one cannot break a promise to Christ and remain the Pope.

ArmyMatt said:
why would there be a schism if everyone knew this was infallible? why didn’t the supporters who were already there just point that out?

Did Arius deny the infallibility of Nicaea? It happens, especially if the Nestorians thought that Leo errored in his infallible statement, which would make them even more inclined to schism, as erroneous infallibility is not of the Spirit but of the enemy. But this has never happened.

ArmyMatt said:
except even his allies at Chalcedon didn’t view his tome that way.

It is true that not all bishops at the Council of Chalcedon initially accepted Leo’s Tome without question, but it is stated in the proceedings of the Council that “Let the decree of the holy and great Council of Chalcedon be confirmed by the authority of Pope Leo...” (Acts, Session 2). Moreover, the immediate acceptance of Leo’s Tome can be seen in the Council documents and public declarations, such as “Peter has spoken through Leo,” which was said immediately after the recitation of the Tome.

ArmyMatt said:
not Biblical.

The coagulation of 'I' and 'from' as in "I will send to you from the Father," is indicative of a single action, as the language provokes both in the same conjugation. John 14:16-17 says, "And I will ask the Father, and he will give you another Advocate to help you and be with you forever—the Spirit of truth. The world cannot accept him, because it neither sees him nor knows him. But you know him, for he lives with you and will be in you." This passage shows that both the Father and the Son are involved in sending the Holy Spirit, with the action of sending being linked to both the Father and the Son, suggesting a unified / joint action. John 16:7 states on that point, "But very truly I tell you, it is for your good that I am going away. Unless I go away, the Advocate will not come to you; but if I go, I will send him to you." This is clear testament to the interrelationship between the Son’s action and the sending of the Spirit with the Father. Finally, John 16:15: "...All that belongs to the Father is mine. That is why I said the Spirit will receive from me what he will make known to you." The Spirit is receiving from both the Father and the Son, with everything that belongs to the Father belonging to the Son, i.e., the Spirit.

ArmyMatt said:
no, we never left it. Fr John was just ubervocal about it. it’s in our service on how to receive other Christians which predates Fr John.

Fair, but that does not discount the fact of its loose foundation in patristic theology.

ArmyMatt said:
except we don’t believe through the Son (which we accept) means is in any way the principle of the Spirit’s procession. the one principle is the one Father from Whom the Spirit proceeds.

The one principle is the Father, whom the Spirit proceeds yes, but where does the Son picture in within the Father's procession of the Spirit? To be able for the Spirit to act "through the Son," the Son must be united with the Father in the action of spiration: "We profess faithfully and devotedly that the Holy Spirit proceeds eternally from the Father and the Son, not as from two principles, but as from one principle; not by two spirations, but by one single spiration." We do not differ on theology, I don't think, more on our terminology, which we should outline the meanings of.

ArmyMatt said:
it actually was. there is actually a movement in Orthodoxy to recognize our Constantinople IV as ecumenical for that very reason.

The historical record demonstrates that while there were efforts, it does not equate to mutual recognition of the council as ecumenical by both East and West, which was the topic. Rome did not consider the council itself to be ecumenical, but accepted some proceedings, and as such it is not an ecumenical council regardless of the acceptance in the east.

ArmyMatt said:
thank God!

Glory be to the Father, and the Son, and the Holy Spirit, amen! Lord have mercy!

(2/2)

AveChristusRex · Dec 20, 2024

By the way ArmyMatt, I also did not know until now you are a priest, may God bless you and keep you all the days of your life and your service, axios!

ArmyMatt · Dec 20, 2024

AveChristusRex said:
A few points on this (from Did St Paul really rebuke St Peter? ... Maybe not!):

Paul mentions "Peter" and "Cephas" in the same context, suggesting they are two people: "On the contrary, when they saw that I had been entrusted with the gospel to the uncircumcised, just as Peter had been entrusted with the gospel to the circumcised (for he who worked through Peter for his apostolic ministry to the circumcised worked also through me for mine to the Gentiles), and when James and Cephas and John, who seemed to be pillars, perceived the grace that was given to me, they gave the right hand of fellowship to Barnabas and me, that we should go to the Gentiles and they to the circumcised. Only, they asked us to remember the poor, the very thing I was eager to do. But when Cephas came to Antioch, I opposed him to his face, because he stood condemned. For before certain men came from James, he was eating with the Gentiles; but when they came he drew back and separated himself, fearing the circumcision party." Why is Paul shifting from "Peter" to "Cephas," especially in the same breath? This is very odd if Peter and Cephas are the same person.

Cephas seems to rank below that of an Apostle given the texts his name appears in:

1 Corinthians 1:12, 3:22 list the order of Paul, then Apollos, then Cephas.

1 Corinthians 9:5 says "the other apostles and the brothers of the Lord and Cephas."

1 Corinthians 15:5 says Jesus "appeared to Cephas, then to the twelve." The idea of putting Cephas after Apollos and 'outside' the number of the twelve suggests Cephas was a high ranking Christian who helped Paul and Apollos, but who was also not Peter.

The name Cephas only appears 7 or 8 times in the New Testament, while the name Peter appears 161 times: If Peter also (regularly) went by the name Cephas, then the New Testament did an odd job of making this clear. In fact, why use the name Cephas at all? Though John 1:42 does say that Peter was named Cephas, the text says that this translates as Petros (Peter). The use of Peter rather than Cephas was precisely because "Peter" was a Greek name, which was the common language, which was precisely so that the people would know he was "The Rock" (they wouldn't have known what Cephas meant). This is why many people who migrate to America change their name to an American-sounding name, and this new American-sounding name is what the public knows them as.

There were some in the early church who said Cephas of Galatians 2:11 was not Peter the Apostle: The first church historian, Eusebius of Caecarea (325AD), said the following: [Clement of Alexandria] says that Cephas was one of the seventy disciples, a man who bore the same name as the apostle Peter, and the one concerning whom Paul says, "When Cephas came to Antioch I withstood him to his face" (Church History 1.12.2). Though only a minority of Fathers have seen Peter and Cephas as separate individuals, the earliest Father to make this claim was Clement of Alexandria around 200 AD. He says that the Cephas of Galatians 2:9,11 was one of the 70 disciples (Lk 10:1) rather than Peter the Apostle. This is significant because it shows there is a very old tradition behind this claim, even if unpopular.

Peter's attitude towards the Gentiles makes it highly unlikely that he would ever succumb to Judaizing: Peter is described as a radically changed man after Pentecost. He is seen in Acts as full of the Holy Spirit and mightily proclaiming the Gospel, even suffering persecution from the Jews for doing so. In fact, Peter was the first person entrusted by God to bring the Gentiles to the faith, which was confirmed repeatedly by God (Acts 10-11). In Acts 11:1-3, the Jews confronted Peter for "simply" entering a Gentile's home, but Peter stood firm about how the Gentiles were accepted by God and that everyone should embrace them. If Peter was ever going to cave into Jewish pressure, this would have been the moment. But what about Peter's character closer to the time of the Jerusalem Council of Acts 15? If the Incident came after the Council, then this means Peter completely repudiated his own testimony at the Council and even contradicted the spirit of the Council. That doesn't seem likely, since if Peter was not afraid of Judaizers in Jerusalem before the entire Church, then why be afraid of them later on in Antioch? And if the Incident had taken place prior to the Council, then Peter's testimony (Acts 15:7-11) would have been hypocritical and a joke. Thus, it is highly unlikely that Peter ever succumbed to Judaizing.

There is no indication that Peter was in Antioch with Paul at the time of the Incident. The book of Acts makes no mention that Peter and Paul were in Antioch at the same time. This is a significant detail for Luke to omit if Peter really was there. In fact, the details Luke does give suggests that Peter was in Jerusalem at the time when the Incident took place. A key clue comes from Acts 15:1-4. It is certain that Acts 15:1 is speaking of the Incident, with Acts 15:2 showing that Paul and Barnabas traveled to Jerusalem to speak with the Apostles on this matter. If Peter was in Antioch at that time, then surely Peter would have been mentioned accompanying Paul and Barnabas back to Jerusalem.

I don't think it's enough to say that because Peter was Cephas in John 1:42 then we can just carry this over to Galatians 2. But the mention of Cephas sandwiched between the two Apostles James and John in Galatians 2:9 is probably the main reason why people have though he must be Peter. Though it is not impossible, it wouldn't make sense to sandwich a non-Apostle "Cephas" between two actual Apostles. So this must be addressed. The first detail to consider is that perhaps this James and John were not two of the Twelve Apostles. This "James" could not have been James son of Zebedee (since he was slain by Herod, Acts 12:1-2), meaning he most likely was James son of Alphaeus, the only other James we know of (Acts 1:13). On the other hand, some in Church history have thought that the "James, the Lord's brother" mentioned in Galatians 1:18-19 was not James Alphaeus, but rather a new (third) James, and that he was the James who was mentioned in Galatians 2:9. If this latter case is true, then "James" is not one of the Twelve Apostles, and thus "Cephas" should not be seen as one of the Twelve Apostles either. But if the James in question is son of Alphaeus (who was one of the Twelve), then the matter comes down to examining who "John" is.

As for the identity of "John," up through Acts 8, the multiple references of "John" most certainly refer to the Apostle John, son of Zebedee (and brother of James). But from Acts 12 onward, a transition takes place. John son of Zebedee is never explicitly mentioned from there on, and instead a new John begins to appear, and he takes an active role with Paul and Barnabas (Acts 12:12, 25; 13:5, 13; 15:37-39). He is repeatedly referred to as "John, who's other name was Mark," who was also the cousin of Barnabas (Col 4:10; 2 Tim 4:11; Philem 1:24). This would suggest that the "John" of Galatians 2:9 is John-Mark, while identifying him as John the Apostle would be complete assumption. So even if James son of Alphaeus was the James in question, there is reasonable doubt about this John's apostolicity, which means the three men of Galatians 2:9 should not be assumed to be three of the Twelve Apostles. The second detail to consider is the context surrounding these three men.
The ordering of "James, Cephas, and John" is interesting given that Peter is always mentioned first in every list of the Apostles. The ordering of names often signifies rank, so this text comes off as suggesting James is in some sense above Cephas. While many would point to this text suggesting that this James did in fact supplant Peter's primacy, that's quite uncalled for and unsubstantiated. More likely this signifies that Cephas was not Peter. The same verse says that these three men were "reputed to be pillars," which is also interesting. Many have read this as suggesting that James, Peter, and John were high-ranking Apostles among the Twelve. While that reading has merit, it seems a bit superfluous given that the mere singling out of three Apostles would in itself signify their superiority. But if these three men are not part of the Twelve, then "reputing them as pillars" would make a lot of sense because the audience would need to know these men held "clout" in Jerusalem.

Lastly, the actions of "James, Cephas, and John" are worth examining: "On the contrary, when they saw that I [Paul] had been entrusted with the gospel to the uncircumcised, just as Peter had been entrusted with the gospel to the circumcised, and when James and Cephas and John, who seemed to be pillars, perceived the grace that was given to me, they gave the right hand of fellowship to Barnabas and me, that we should go to the Gentiles and they to the circumcised" (Gal 2:7-9; verse 8 was omitted to [hopefully] assist with clarity). The "they" in verse 7 must be those in Jerusalem who Paul says were "reputed to be influential" (Gal 2:1,6) - using similar language as "reputed to be pillars" in 2:9 - and who recognized Paul had one mission while Peter had another. This passage is somewhat confusing since it can be rendered differently, but if Peter is Cephas then the text would be saying: "When the reputable leaders recognized my divine mission was to the Gentiles and Peter's divine mission was to the Jews - and when James, Peter, and John also recognized my divine mission to the Gentiles and Peter to the Jews - we all decided to unite and partition the Gospel duties, sending me to the Gentiles and James, Peter, and John to the Jews." In other words, everyone already recognized the Gospel was partitioned by divine decree between Peter and Paul, so it's absurd to think Peter and Paul had to unite and even more absurd to say this union resulted in a partition of already partituted Gospel duties. The only way this verse makes sense is if it is saying Paul, Barnabas, James, Cephas, and John, all went to Antioch but had different targets when they were up there. Knowing the time of the events of Galatians 2:9-11 will also help determine whether it makes sense to see Cephas as Peter.

It seems that when Paul says "before certain men came from James, he [Cephas] was eating with the Gentiles" (Gal 2:11), Paul is referring to the same incident that James wrote about in the Council's Letter to Antioch: "we have heard that some persons have gone out from us and troubled you with words, unsettling your minds, although we gave them no instructions" (Acts 15:24). That incident must be that of Acts 15:1-5, shortly after Paul returned to Antioch to tell them the success of bringing Gentiles into the Church (Acts 14:25-27). This is confirmed by Galatians 2:1-3, which speaks of Paul and Barnabas going to Jerusalem to settle the issue by the Apostles (Acts 15:1-5). (An important detail about Galatians 2:2-3 shows that Titus was not forced to be circumcised in Jerusalem, proving to Paul that Judaizing wasn't even a problem there.) With that in mind, when Paul says "they gave the right hand of fellowship to Barnabas and me" (Galatians 2:9), this receiving Barnabas' and the others' friendship must have taken place between Paul's conversion (Acts 9) and Acts 15:1.

The first time Barnabas meets Paul is in Acts 9:26-30, but this does not seem to be what Galatians 2:9b is talking about, since there is no indication the Gentiles had come into the Church yet (which didn't happen until Acts 10-11). So the window of time encompassing Galatians 2:9-11 must be between Acts 11-14. Acts 11:19-26 appears to be the first time the Gentiles enter the Church of Antioch, which is followed by the Church in Jerusalem sending Barnabas to Antioch to track down Paul. This means the designating of Barnabas as a companion to Paul is what Acts 11:22-26 refers to. Interestingly, in Acts 11:27-30 it says a famine hit, which called for the Christians elsewhere to collect alms for the Christians in Jerusalem. This fits with Galatians 2:10 about "remembering the poor" (cf 1 Cor 16:1-3). So Galatians 2:9-10 seems to be well accounted for in Acts 11:19-30.

An important detail to take away from here is that Acts 11:22 simply says 'the church at Jerusalem' sent Barnabas to be Paul's companion, with no specific mention of the Apostles "James, Peter, and John" doing so. It is also worth noting that John-Mark was in Jerusalem during the Acts 11:22-26 event (Acts 12:12, 25), which fits with Galatians 2:9. And even though John-Mark traveled with Paul and Barnabas for a while, he was back in Jerusalem when the incident of Acts 15:1-5 took place (Acts 13:13-14; 15:36-39), supporting Galatians 2:11 which only mentions Cephas coming to Antioch. These details further strengthen the case that "John" of Galatians 2:9 is "John-Mark."

I feel a very good Biblical case can be made supporting the notion that Peter was not Cephas. The transition from "Peter" to "Cephas" in Galatians 2 is the first strong clue, followed by the fact Peter's character described in Acts is very robust and Luke makes no mention of a serious gaff. If we take it that 1 Corinthians was written after Galatians, this would mean the 4 references to "Cephas," not in a way that would identify him with Peter, means Cephas accepted Paul's rebuke and became a companion of Paul's missionary work. On the flip side, there isn't even any solid evidence in favor of identifying the two, and the main argument in favor comes from the "James, Cephas, and John" reference that has long simply been assumed to be the three Apostles.

most people I know, including my RC friends, acknowledge Cephas is Peter. this is the first I have heard they might be two different people as a serious point.

AveChristusRex · Dec 20, 2024

ArmyMatt said:
most people I know, including my RC friends, acknowledge Cephas is Peter. this is the first I have heard they might be two different people as a serious point.

Many have written on it, in fact the only Fathers who assumed they were one and the same were Pope St. Gregory, Origen, and St. Augustine, in which Gregory took a more abridged look at the verse. It was generally agreed that it was not Peter, with St. Jerome saying as much “Some think that this Cephas is not the Apostle Peter, but one of the seventy disciples.” (Epistle to the Galatians, 2:11). Abroiaster states the same: "It is thought by some that Cephas is not Peter, for Cephas was one of the seventy disciples, and the argument does not require that this Cephas should be the Apostle Peter" (Commentary on Galatians, 2:11). St. Eusebius noted: "Cephas is a common name among the Jews, and there were many who bore this name among the disciples of the Lord" (Church History, Book 1, Chapter 12). St. Clement indirectly stated that, "There were many among the seventy who were called by names that might confuse them with the Twelve" (Stromata, Book 4, Chapter 6). And finally, Theodoret acknowledges that the identity of Cephas was debated: "There are those who argue that Cephas, being mentioned separately, might be one of the seventy and not the Apostle Peter." (Commentary on Galatians, 2:11). It is not unfounded in its roots, and is the most-likely Biblical case.

ArmyMatt · Dec 20, 2024

AveChristusRex said:
On "if your understanding is true then it never should have happened in the East," history is never perfect, and at times such as Vigilius's time (in which he was erroneously imprisoned by the Emperor in the cusp of the debacle) some considerations need to be made, as the video said, "this was not the time infallibility shown its brightest, but it was there." The east made a drastic decision in condemning Vigilius, as they were influenced by the pressure from the Emperor, who dragged Vigilius by his feet out of the cathedral and to his prison. They did not want that to happen to them, so they abided by every command the Emperor made, including condemning Vigilius though they knew it was not their place. Particularly noticeable is the fact that they immediately removed the condemnation after the Emperor was unable to persuade them, and this retraction of the condemnation was even prior to Vigilius's decision on the Three Chapters was known (during his time of deliberation, which the Emperor thought to be a condoning of the error).

and then folks at the council should have raised at least a bit of a stink if everyone knew you can’t excommunicate the Pope.

AveChristusRex said:
The other members of the Pentarchy did not have the same responsibility and indwelling as the Petrine See did, by your own admission. Thus, because Christ only promised Peter and his See (Rome) that his faith would always be infallible, no other patriarchate was entitled to infallibility, so they could error as they wished, with it not immediately excommunicating them. However, if the Pontiff errors, then he breaks the promise of Christ to St. Peter and immediately ceases to be Pope, as one cannot break a promise to Christ and remain the Pope.

nowhere does it say anything unique to St Peter is only passed to Rome.

AveChristusRex said:
Did Arius deny the infallibility of Nicaea? It happens, especially if the Nestorians thought that Leo errored in his infallible statement, which would make them even more inclined to schism, as erroneous infallibility is not of the Spirit but of the enemy. But this has never happened.

according to you, no infallible statement was given at Nicaea. but you say one was given at Ephesus (Robber) and Chalcedon, yet not even Leo’s allies brought that up.

AveChristusRex said:
It is true that not all bishops at the Council of Chalcedon initially accepted Leo’s Tome without question, but it is stated in the proceedings of the Council that “Let the decree of the holy and great Council of Chalcedon be confirmed by the authority of Pope Leo...” (Acts, Session 2). Moreover, the immediate acceptance of Leo’s Tome can be seen in the Council documents and public declarations, such as “Peter has spoken through Leo,” which was said immediately after the recitation of the Tome.

only after it was cross checked with St Cyril’s writings.

AveChristusRex said:
The coagulation of 'I' and 'from' as in "I will send to you from the Father," is indicative of a single action, as the language provokes both in the same conjugation. John 14:16-17 says, "And I will ask the Father, and he will give you another Advocate to help you and be with you forever—the Spirit of truth. The world cannot accept him, because it neither sees him nor knows him. But you know him, for he lives with you and will be in you." This passage shows that both the Father and the Son are involved in sending the Holy Spirit, with the action of sending being linked to both the Father and the Son, suggesting a unified / joint action. John 16:7 states on that point, "But very truly I tell you, it is for your good that I am going away. Unless I go away, the Advocate will not come to you; but if I go, I will send him to you." This is clear testament to the interrelationship between the Son’s action and the sending of the Spirit with the Father. Finally, John 16:15: "...All that belongs to the Father is mine. That is why I said the Spirit will receive from me what he will make known to you." The Spirit is receiving from both the Father and the Son, with everything that belongs to the Father belonging to the Son, i.e., the Spirit.

this does not say the Spirit proceeds from both as from one principle.

AveChristusRex said:
The one principle is the Father, whom the Spirit proceeds yes, but where does the Son picture in within the Father's procession of the Spirit? To be able for the Spirit to act "through the Son," the Son must be united with the Father in the action of spiration: "We profess faithfully and devotedly that the Holy Spirit proceeds eternally from the Father and the Son, not as from two principles, but as from one principle; not by two spirations, but by one single spiration." We do not differ on theology, I don't think, more on our terminology, which we should outline the meanings of.

we do differ on theology. the Spirit proceeds from the Father alone.

AveChristusRex said:
The historical record demonstrates that while there were efforts, it does not equate to mutual recognition of the council as ecumenical by both East and West, which was the topic. Rome did not consider the council itself to be ecumenical, but accepted some proceedings, and as such it is not an ecumenical council regardless of the acceptance in the east.

Rome did consider it ecumenical before changing.

ArmyMatt · Dec 20, 2024

AveChristusRex said:
Many have written on it, in fact the only Fathers who assumed they were one and the same were Pope St. Gregory, Origen, and St. Augustine, in which Gregory took a more abridged look at the verse. It was generally agreed that it was not Peter, with St. Jerome saying as much “Some think that this Cephas is not the Apostle Peter, but one of the seventy disciples.” (Epistle to the Galatians, 2:11). Abroiaster states the same: "It is thought by some that Cephas is not Peter, for Cephas was one of the seventy disciples, and the argument does not require that this Cephas should be the Apostle Peter" (Commentary on Galatians, 2:11). St. Eusebius noted: "Cephas is a common name among the Jews, and there were many who bore this name among the disciples of the Lord" (Church History, Book 1, Chapter 12). St. Clement indirectly stated that, "There were many among the seventy who were called by names that might confuse them with the Twelve" (Stromata, Book 4, Chapter 6). And finally, Theodoret acknowledges that the identity of Cephas was debated: "There are those who argue that Cephas, being mentioned separately, might be one of the seventy and not the Apostle Peter." (Commentary on Galatians, 2:11). It is not unfounded in its roots, and is the most-likely Biblical case.

just because there were many of the same names is not a good point to make. there were many Johns but that doesn’t mean the guy who wrote the Gospel was the same that baptized Christ in the Jordan.

plus, most of these guys you referenced are not Fathers.

AveChristusRex · Dec 20, 2024

ArmyMatt said:
and then folks at the council should have raised at least a bit of a stink if everyone knew you can’t excommunicate the Pope.

They were not in the place to, as the Emperor literally was dragging people by the ankles to side with him in his personal attempt to reunite the Miaphysites with Orthodoxy. Those who refused to submit to Emperor Justinian's position on this matter were simply removed; such as Zolius, the Patriarch of Alexandria, who didn't go along with Justinian at one point, so he was removed and replaced by Apollinaris who did: "In the same way Ephraim, patriarch of Antioch, would not agree [to the emperor's edict condemning the Three Chapters]; but when he was threatened with deposition, he also subscribed... Patriarch Peter of Jerusalem. When, at the beginning, a company of monks visited him... he declared, with an oath, that whoever agreed with the new decree attacked the Council of Chalcedon. In spite of this he agreed himself later on... Similar compulsion was brought to bear upon the other bishops, and it was resolved to extort the subscriptions of the whole episcopate..." (Karl von Hefele, A History Of The Councils Of The Catholic Church, AD 1896, Book 14, Chap. 1).

ArmyMatt said:
nowhere does it say anything unique to St Peter is only passed to Rome.

I think it is well attested through a quote from Tertullian, which said: “How happy is that Church, on which apostles poured forth all their doctrine along with their blood! Where Peter endured a passion like his Lord’s!” The site of Martyrdom is important, especially concerning Peter.

ArmyMatt said:
according to you, no infallible statement was given at Nicaea. but you say one was given at Ephesus (Robber) and Chalcedon, yet not even Leo’s allies brought that up.

Nicaea was infallible through its disputation and acceptance by the Pontiff. Ephesus* and Chalcedon were given the Tome, which was ex cathedra, and, as stated prior, Leo assumed it would be immediately accepted, with confusion occurring at the fact that the Illyrian bishops did not immediately accept it because of their canonical situation at that time.

* on Ephesus because Leo said after the conclusion of the Council: "The decision of the holy synod was ignored, my letters were not read, and everything was done contrary to canon law" (Pope Leo I, Letter 95 to Emperor Theodosius II). So we have two situations:

Ephesus, where an ex cathedra statement was promulgated for it, but was not read so had no ability to be accepted.
Chalcedon, which had the ex cathedra statement read aloud and conjured immediate acceptance among most, with confusion occurring at the fact that the Illyrian bishops did not immediately accept it because of their canonical situation at that time.

I, then, do not consider it strange that Leo’s allies did not bring up the infallible statement made in Ephesus, as it was not read aloud.

ArmyMatt said:
only after it was cross checked with St Cyril’s writings.

This only applied for the Illyrian bishops, as the rest, according to the acts themselves, responded immediately following the ending of the recitation of the Tome: "After the reading of the foregoing epistle, the most reverend bishops cried out: This is the faith of the fathers, this is the faith of the Apostles..." There is no wiggle room in the time frame according to the Acts of the Council, as none is provided in context.

ArmyMatt said:
this does not say the Spirit proceeds from both as from one principle.

Well, the term 'principle' refers to the source that allows the spirit to proceed within the inner life of the Trinity, so the act of the Spirit being brought to earth through the consubstantiality of the Father and the Son while maintaining their distinct personhood is a reflection of the procession of the Spirit.

ArmyMatt said:
we do differ on theology. the Spirit proceeds from the Father alone.

But it is not enough to keep us apart, and the Orthodox Church, to my knowledge, has never denied "through the Son" nor has it said that you must believe in the sole procession of the Spirit from the Father without the Son to be Orthodox [I could be wrong, though]. I think the similarities are overshadowed but are able to be made manifest in unity.

ArmyMatt said:
Rome did consider it ecumenical before changing.

John VIII did not use the ecumenical endorsement in his writing on the Council, especially when he said: “We approve and confirm the decisions of the synod in Constantinople and accept the peace made between the two patriarchs, Photius and Ignatius, as if it were made by us” (Pope John VIII, Letter to Emperor Basil I, 879), but not the Synod in itself. Moreover, “We have learned from the letter of your piety, and from the synodal letter sent to us by our brother, the bishop of Constantinople, that the pontiff of Constantinople has received the Church of Rome, and that there is a reconciliation between the two bishops. We accept this with joy and thanksgiving to God” (Pope John VIII, Letter to Emperor Basil I, 880). John VIII expressed a degree of support for the reconciliation between Photius and Ignatius, but he did not explicitly acknowledge the council as ecumenical.

ArmyMatt said:
just because there were many of the same names is not a good point to make. there were many Johns but that doesn’t mean the guy who wrote the Gospel was the same that baptized Christ in the Jordan.

plus, most of these guys you referenced are not Fathers.

True, but what I meant was that the source of this analysis is not new, and is very reputable given the individuals who considered it a possibility. I included the quotes on 'many of the same names' not as a proof but as a general implication.

ArmyMatt · Dec 20, 2024

AveChristusRex said:
They were not in the place to, as the Emperor literally was dragging people by the ankles to side with him in his personal attempt to reunite the Miaphysites with Orthodoxy. Those who refused to submit to Emperor Justinian's position on this matter were simply removed; such as Zolius, the Patriarch of Alexandria, who didn't go along with Justinian at one point, so he was removed and replaced by Apollinaris who did: "In the same way Ephraim, patriarch of Antioch, would not agree [to the emperor's edict condemning the Three Chapters]; but when he was threatened with deposition, he also subscribed... Patriarch Peter of Jerusalem. When, at the beginning, a company of monks visited him... he declared, with an oath, that whoever agreed with the new decree attacked the Council of Chalcedon. In spite of this he agreed himself later on... Similar compulsion was brought to bear upon the other bishops, and it was resolved to extort the subscriptions of the whole episcopate..." (Karl von Hefele, A History Of The Councils Of The Catholic Church, AD 1896, Book 14, Chap. 1).

they were facing martyrdom at the hands of the non-Chalcedonians in certain areas, but St Justinian is too much for them?

AveChristusRex said:
I think it is well attested through a quote from Tertullian, which said: “How happy is that Church, on which apostles poured forth all their doctrine along with their blood! Where Peter endured a passion like his Lord’s!” The site of Martyrdom is important, especially concerning Peter.

even that quote doesn’t affirm infallibility.

AveChristusRex said:
Nicaea was infallible through its disputation and acceptance by the Pontiff. Ephesus* and Chalcedon were given the Tome, which was ex cathedra, and, as stated prior, Leo assumed it would be immediately accepted, with confusion occurring at the fact that the Illyrian bishops did not immediately accept it because of their canonical situation at that time.

* on Ephesus because Leo said after the conclusion of the Council: "The decision of the holy synod was ignored, my letters were not read, and everything was done contrary to canon law" (Pope Leo I, Letter 95 to Emperor Theodosius II). So we have two situations:

Ephesus, where an ex cathedra statement was promulgated for it, but was not read so had no ability to be accepted.

Chalcedon, which had the ex cathedra statement read aloud and conjured immediate acceptance among most, with confusion occurring at the fact that the Illyrian bishops did not immediately accept it because of their canonical situation at that time.

I, then, do not consider it strange that Leo’s allies did not bring up the infallible statement made in Ephesus, as it was not read aloud.

at Chalcedon the proclamation was only after it was checked against St Cyril. and again, you’re saying folks knew this was an infallible decree, but no one mentioned that point.

AveChristusRex said:
This only applied for the Illyrian bishops, as the rest, according to the acts themselves, responded immediately following the ending of the recitation of the Tome: "After the reading of the foregoing epistle, the most reverend bishops cried out: This is the faith of the fathers, this is the faith of the Apostles..." There is no wiggle room in the time frame according to the Acts of the Council, as none is provided in context.

see above.

AveChristusRex said:
Well, the term 'principle' refers to the source that allows the spirit to proceed within the inner life of the Trinity, so the act of the Spirit being brought to earth through the consubstantiality of the Father and the Son while maintaining their distinct personhood is a reflection of the procession of the Spirit.

again, that’s not Biblical. and I have yet to read an argument defending the Filioque that brings up the Spirit proceeding within the inner life of the Trinity. that doesn’t make sense since He possesses the inner life Himself.

AveChristusRex said:
But it is not enough to keep us apart, and the Orthodox Church, to my knowledge, has never denied "through the Son" nor has it said that you must believe in the sole procession of the Spirit from the Father without the Son to be Orthodox [I could be wrong, though]. I think the similarities are overshadowed but are able to be made manifest in unity.

while we affirm through the Son, it absolutely will keep us apart. the Filioque is heretical from our POV.

AveChristusRex said:
John VIII did not use the ecumenical endorsement in his writing on the Council, especially when he said: “We approve and confirm the decisions of the synod in Constantinople and accept the peace made between the two patriarchs, Photius and Ignatius, as if it were made by us” (Pope John VIII, Letter to Emperor Basil I, 879), but not the Synod in itself. Moreover, “We have learned from the letter of your piety, and from the synodal letter sent to us by our brother, the bishop of Constantinople, that the pontiff of Constantinople has received the Church of Rome, and that there is a reconciliation between the two bishops. We accept this with joy and thanksgiving to God” (Pope John VIII, Letter to Emperor Basil I, 880). John VIII expressed a degree of support for the reconciliation between Photius and Ignatius, but he did not explicitly acknowledge the council as ecumenical.

if he accepted the decisions, he accepted the condemnation of the Filioque.

AveChristusRex said:
True, but what I meant was that the source of this analysis is not new, and is very reputable given the individuals who considered it a possibility. I included the quotes on 'many of the same names' not as a proof but as a general implication.

and most of who you quoted aren’t Fathers. not a good case to make.

AveChristusRex · Dec 22, 2024

My apologies for being so late, I work on Saturdays and was so exhausted from work I could not muster the power to respond, please forgive me!

ArmyMatt said:
they were facing martyrdom at the hands of the non-Chalcedonians in certain areas, but St Justinian is too much for them?

He did not merely threaten martyrdom; he used deposition, exile, economic pressures, and political maneuvering to achieve his ends. To the bishops, it was to be seen if he would not only remove them from their position but remove their position entirely (John Meyendorff's Imperial Unity and Christian Divisions, p. 268).

ArmyMatt said:
even that quote doesn’t affirm infallibility.

That quote was a response to your comment that he founded other sees, and therefore they share in the authority; it matters where he was martyred, especially as St. Paul was martyred there as well [all ex cathedra pronouncements, in the form of a Papal Bull, is stamped with a bulla that has an image of Sts. Peter and Paul on one side and the name of the issuing Pope on the other].

ArmyMatt said:
at Chalcedon the proclamation was only after it was checked against St Cyril. and again, you’re saying folks knew this was an infallible decree, but no one mentioned that point.

Could you please provide a source for this? I am using the same source as no time frame from the recitation to the reception shows they did most likely immediately accept it, noting that it was the faith of Cyril.

ArmyMatt said:
again, that’s not Biblical. and I have yet to read an argument defending the Filioque that brings up the Spirit proceeding within the inner life of the Trinity. that doesn’t make sense since He possesses the inner life Himself.

It cannot be that the filioque is heretical as it would anathematize your own saints, including St. Augustine (or Bl. Augustine to the east) who wrote in De Trinitate (XV, 29): "The Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father as the first principle and, through his timeless gift to the Son, from the Son also." Your blessed makes clear that the Father is the ultimate source (principium), but the Son’s eternal generation and possession of all that the Father has (John 16:15) make the Son co-equal in the procession of the Spirit. Moreover, CCC 246 states, citing St. Augustine: "The eternal order of the persons of the Trinity is such that the Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son as from a single principle... This order is not merely an external economy but an eternal, inner relationship."

ArmyMatt said:
while we affirm through the Son, it absolutely will keep us apart. the Filioque is heretical from our POV.

Heretical is a strong word, as it anathematizes those who believe in it, as those are without right faith (Galatians 1:8-9). Not even the Council of Constantinople issued formal anathemas against the Latin Church or its faithful for the filioque. Moreover, as you most likely very well know, St. Maximus stated plainly, "[The Romans] have shown, by the testimonies of the Latin Fathers, that they have not made the Son the cause of the Spirit but have manifested the Spirit’s procession through Him and have thus, as it were, explained the unity and indivisibility of the essence." Are you to say that any Saint or Father who affirmed 'and the son' is anathema? Who made that declaration so as to invalidate the veneration of some saints?

ArmyMatt said:
if he accepted the decisions, he accepted the condemnation of the Filioque.

Richard Price, in his analysis of the council, notes: "John VIII's approval of the council was limited to its reconciliatory role between Photius and Ignatius, and he avoided addressing the wider theological implications, particularly regarding the Filioque" (The Acts of the Council of Constantinople 879-880).

ArmyMatt said:
and most of who you quoted aren’t Fathers. not a good case to make.

Key on "most," as there are some, but this reality was adopted by many saints and theologians before and after the Fathers wrote their commentary on the matter.

I am particularly fascinated with your response to the anathama of the filioque, as it seems this either excommunicates many of the saints that the Greeks and Russians have declared to be Saints, or proves that the filioque is not anathematizing and thus could be held in a form so as to remain in the ark of the faithful according to the east. I also wish to ask on this point if you are Genuine Orthodox? I have never seen an Orthodox individual, especially a cleric, make the assertion that the filioque is heretical.

Respectful Question on Doctrinal Development

Mohylite Catholic breathing with the 'Two Lungs'

Mohylite Catholic breathing with the 'Two Lungs'

Regular Member

Mohylite Catholic breathing with the 'Two Lungs'

Well-Known Member

Mohylite Catholic breathing with the 'Two Lungs'

Regular Member

Regular Member

Mohylite Catholic breathing with the 'Two Lungs'

Regular Member

Mohylite Catholic breathing with the 'Two Lungs'

Mohylite Catholic breathing with the 'Two Lungs'

Mohylite Catholic breathing with the 'Two Lungs'

Regular Member

Mohylite Catholic breathing with the 'Two Lungs'

Regular Member

Regular Member

Mohylite Catholic breathing with the 'Two Lungs'

Regular Member

Mohylite Catholic breathing with the 'Two Lungs'

Similar threads

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency