www.byzcath.org Forums Faith & Christian Life Faith & Theology Infallibility of the Councils

Read this link, which tells how the Pope of Rome sent delegates to the Council of Ephesus. Again, it is well known that the Pope of Rome did not actually attend any of the Seven Ecumenical Councils.

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/05491a.htm

Am I missing something? Why does it matter if the Pope was in attendance? Isn't it his acceptance/ratification that matters, not his personal presence?

Alexis

Actually, as I read the historical record, even his acceptance was not required or even expected. What mattered much more was the acceptance of the Emperor.

Alexis,

That is a good question and I don't think the answer is self-evident. I think a case could be made for the view that the Pope must ratify (in the sense of 'agree to') the decision of a Council, but one can also make a different case. I don't have a strong opinion on the matter.

Joe

Father bless,

Thank you for pointing out those very good points. In fact, I will have to correct what I said. I should say that many Orthodoxy, myself included, do not see any reason why the Church couldn't call a council. But, there are other Orthodox who disagree.

Joe

Shane,

You're sarcasm is starting to wear thin here, especially as one who is leaving our communion. The Catholic Church has never asserted that the Pope needs to be personally present for a council to be regarded as ecumenical.

I think a more fruitful exercise would be to explore more of the role of reception in the development of a eucharistic ecclesiology.

Part of the problem that I have with the notion of ascribing to the laity the power to trump a council of bishops is that:

a. none of the first 7 councils functioned in that manner or even, so far as I can tell, with that assumption

b. at what precise point do we say a majority of laity have made a conscious reception of a council? (this is entirely impossible to determine)

c. it takes the lay role as guardians of orthodoxy (a role I think that is more critical than what is often ascribed solely to monastics) and turns it into a process of majority rule...in which case one wonders how anything can be taught authoritatively in the Church?

Jesus certainly did not function with that assumption in mind.

"Will you leave me too?" He said to the 12 after the crowds seemed to abandon Him after his difficult teaching on the Holy Eucharist.

"Lord, to whom shall we go?," asked Simon Peter. "You have the words of eternal life."

The power to infallibly teach those same words of "eternal life" was given to the apostles and their successors. It was part of their co-missioning. It is also essential to a functioning magisterium.

In ICXC,

Gordo

Oh dear, I thought Shane was being serious. Well, I think you have good thoughts on this Gordon. Clearly, the successors of the apostles have real authority to teach and the doctrines of the Church are not subject to a majority vote.

Joe

GIVE ME A BREAK, Gordo!

I was being serious! I think I'll act like St. Nicholas on that comment you made about me being "sarcastic".

What OTHER times have I been sarcastic? I'm mad about the statment you made.

I'm tired of folks on the forum for having the tendency to JUDGE JUDGE JUDGE JUDGE JUDGE without knowing me personally and where I'm coming from!

SPDundas
Deaf Byzantine

Shane,

If you are being serious, and I assume you are from your post, then I apologize for taking someone else's word for it that you were being sarcastic, though I can understand how one could get that impression.

Joe

Yes, for the reasons you outline and others I think the idea that a council becomes ecumenical based on its reception by the church simply cannot stand. Unfortunately it seems to me it has become something of the dominant view in Orthodoxy now. The church can't always operate in hindsight though, which that model depends on (among its other problems).

Shane,

As I mentioned in response to your PM, my experience with you is that you are generally informed about things Byzantine, so I thought your comment was sort of like a sarcastic "STOP THE PRESSES!" attack on Catholics.

I sincerely apologize for misreading you here. It is one of the limitations of the medium - we cannot always read the non-verbals that would give us a clearer picture of a person's intent.

In ICXC,

Gordo

PS: And because it is not clear due to the cascading quotes, here was the quote that I apparently misread:


This was preceded by:

Well...Catholics do present Papal Primacy and infallibility the worst possible way (as I read what our esteemed Dr. Anthony Dragani said in his east2west.org website).

If you read a link on some thread somewhere I can't remember about Papal Primacy...I put a link in there of the Greek Orthodox Archdiocese website describing Papal Primacy....and I thought it was beautiful...and I would put that in the same parallel as the infallibility issue even though the Orthodox may disagree with it).

I've heard my Roman Catholic friends say that whatever the pope says is perfect and must obey him. I've had to explain that infallibility is only in the Councils and the Pope that speak for it (faith and morals in the Councils). If I understand right, pope only made 2 infallible statment in 2,000 years of Catholic history...which is of Immaculate Conception and Assumption of Mary.

But that's a whole OTHER thread...we need to focus on Ecumenical Councils.

SPDundas
Deaf Byzantine

After the fall of Constantinople, the Eagle transferred to Moscow, and the Orthodox Czar had the right to call a council, being the Orthodox Emperor on Earth. Mr Putin, in the view of some, as the most visible of the very few Orthodox Presidents should have that same authority.

Alexandr

Oh dear.