tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4999044146888823867.post1910565691633839414..comments2023-10-30T08:00:43.585-05:00Comments on Shameless Popery: Catholics, Orthodox, and the Robber CouncilJoe Heschmeyerhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06998682878420098470noreply@blogger.comBlogger26125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4999044146888823867.post-62961912722007305602014-10-26T22:40:25.175-05:002014-10-26T22:40:25.175-05:00The view that Rome had to accept a council to make...The view that Rome had to accept a council to make it ecumenical is circular reasoning because Rome did eventually accept all of them (even by force as Constantinople II shows us). If I turn it around and say, "The Patriarchate of Antioch must accept a council to make it Ecumenical" that cannot be denied because the Patriarch of Antioch eventually did accepted all seven of the classical Ecumenical councils just as Rome. The same is true of Alexandria, Constantinople, or Jerusalem. There's no way to test for potential falsehood of the assertion so it's not a real argument and thus combines the worst of the so called "No True Scotsman" (https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/no-true-scotsman) and "Texas Sharpshooter"(https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/the-texas-sharpshooter) arguments.<br /><br />As for Rome defining something an EC and thus it is, the Council of Sardica was, as I recall, actually called by a Pope (one of the few) and was intended as a second Ecumenical Council but never became that because the bishops present split and the Arians just picked up and left. It produced valid canons and decrees but never took the title "ecumenical." Had Rome's approval been what makes a gathering "ecumenical," we'd be referring to the "Ecumenical Council of Sardica" but we don't. <br /><br />Truth be told, the only common denominators that could actually result in making a council "ecumenical" in the classical age of Christianity is A) being called by the Emperor (that's why pre-Nicean councils were never considered ecumenical even though some of them could be argued to have been called by a Pope) and B) standing the test of time in acceptance. Wanderedintokonyahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05941375038939939193noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4999044146888823867.post-22135287409652233682011-07-15T10:17:02.578-05:002011-07-15T10:17:02.578-05:00Tikhon,
Why is it Catholics "who must show t...Tikhon,<br /><br />Why is it Catholics "who must show that the Seven Oecumenical Synods are not unique. You must show how they are like every false synod with one exception: they have the pope's ratification"? Shouldn't it be your own burden to show why you accept only those Seven?<br /><br />And do you really want to hang your hat on the acts of the Ecumenical Councils? What about the various proclamations in favor of papal supremacy?<br /><br />In any case, I answer your arguments <a href="http://catholicdefense.blogspot.com/2011/07/answering-orthodox-objections-about.html" rel="nofollow">here</a>. God bless,<br /><br />Joe.Joe Heschmeyerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06998682878420098470noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4999044146888823867.post-28147701884308236562011-07-15T01:41:29.969-05:002011-07-15T01:41:29.969-05:00You are misinformed about the Orthodox understandi...You are misinformed about the Orthodox understanding of an Oecumenical Synod, about Orthodox ecclesiology in general, and about the role of an Oecumenical Synod within Orthodox ecclesiology in particular. You admit to not knowing the details of Second Ephesos as given in the Acta of Chalcedon. Had you been familiar with them, it would have been plain why the Robber Council is so-named. It was a violent affair full of every manner of machination, deceit, and coercion. Your question is moot. It is you who must show that the Seven Oecumenical Synods are not unique. You must show how they are like every false synod with one exception: they have the pope's ratification. It is simply dishonest to rely on abstraction when speaking of concrete events with lengthy records of their proceedings. Learn the facts about the Synods, and then pretend to tell us that there is no hope for distinguishing genuine ecclesiastical rulings from latrocinia.Felixhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11851182422240309808noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4999044146888823867.post-25798603206394279062011-07-15T01:05:36.064-05:002011-07-15T01:05:36.064-05:00No. I haven't. What would I learn?No. I haven't. What would I learn?Latenterhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18028986769458356612noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4999044146888823867.post-47228929394845848082011-07-15T00:29:57.717-05:002011-07-15T00:29:57.717-05:00Rather, can you answer the question?Rather, can you answer the question?Felixhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11851182422240309808noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4999044146888823867.post-6974538813221876032011-07-15T00:00:04.166-05:002011-07-15T00:00:04.166-05:00Can you elaborate, tikhon? In what respect?Can you elaborate, tikhon? In what respect?Latenterhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18028986769458356612noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4999044146888823867.post-59374794004754323342011-07-14T23:53:51.011-05:002011-07-14T23:53:51.011-05:00Have you ever read the Acta of the Oecumenical Syn...Have you ever read the Acta of the Oecumenical Synods? Your commentary betrays a superficial understanding of what the Church is and how it functions.Felixhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11851182422240309808noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4999044146888823867.post-2168113109719714532011-07-06T12:10:26.413-05:002011-07-06T12:10:26.413-05:00Wow! Always an honor to make the main page. Nice a...Wow! Always an honor to make the main page. Nice article and the combox pretty well seals the escape routes. That is, unless we want to start proposing utterly arbitrary characteristics of the first 7 councils as the key to ecumenity. Perhaps they and only they started on odd days of the month, but some things can be chalked up to coincidence.Latenterhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18028986769458356612noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4999044146888823867.post-33625986918027491602011-07-06T10:16:52.105-05:002011-07-06T10:16:52.105-05:00Brock, whoops, sorry for being so aggressive. As y...Brock, whoops, sorry for being so aggressive. As you could probably tell, I was responding from the perspective of someone who thought he had a pretty firm grasp on what "heresy" was even as a Protestant. Granted, that sort of argument would only make sense to someone who was already firmly Christian, as either a Protestant or an Orthodox believer. From a different point of view, I can see how it can look self-justifying. Secular religion classes at my college often made reference to what they thought were arbitrary judgments of orthodoxy that depended only on who "won" and who "lost." The Da Vinci code makes a lot out of this, too. I suppose it ultimately comes down to the fact that everyone is orthodox in his or her own mind, so we have to look for the authority that must have been established to help us out of that quandary.Kevin Vancehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15349012158952879251noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4999044146888823867.post-15343732817893440922011-07-06T09:06:16.877-05:002011-07-06T09:06:16.877-05:00HocCogitat,
I agree, it was a tangent. Go back t...HocCogitat,<br /><br />I agree, it was a tangent. Go back to what both Kevin and I said initially in response. "Rome plus majority consensus" is neither a real standard, nor a workable one (there are also times, as with the Filoque controversy, where Rome was right, and a majority of the Patriarchs were wrong). Historically, there was one standard: the papacy. "Rome plus majority consensus" is just a counter-standard you made up, after your last standard ("Rome plus unanimous consensus") failed.<br /><br />Evasions aside, I think you have all the evidence needed to recognize the role which the papacy plays in the Church: not some last Catholic invention or expansion of the papacy, but the papacy in the early days of the Church.<br /><br />So to the extent that we can say <i>anything</i> is an Ecumenical Council, it's because the pope certifies it as one (not that Councils aren't held without prior papal approval, but that they aren't deemed "Ecumenical" without the pope adopting them). By that standard alone can we say First Ephesus is an Ecumenical Council and Second Ephesus isn't. And by that very same standard, we can say that Trent and Vatican I are Ecumenical Councils. What I don't see is any principled, non-arbitrary way of getting the first Seven and no more.<br /><br />In Christ, <br /><br />Joe.Joe Heschmeyerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06998682878420098470noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4999044146888823867.post-61517311465827241472011-07-05T19:01:32.993-05:002011-07-05T19:01:32.993-05:00HocCogitat, the self-fulfillin question is exactly...HocCogitat, the self-fulfillin question is exactly what I was wondering.<br /><br />Kevin, I am a recent convert to Catholicism from Protestantism.Brock Talkshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09990965125533607727noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4999044146888823867.post-11922340839408436152011-07-05T17:41:41.172-05:002011-07-05T17:41:41.172-05:00Well, ok, that was a tangent, but I think I have s...Well, ok, that was a tangent, but I think I have shown that the claim is self fulfilling, except to the extent that Rome has not contradicted a prior official statement with a latter one.( But even that takes some pretty intense gymnastics on things like no one saved out of the church.)<br /><br />And we can say Vatican 1 was not a council bc the majority of patriarchs did not support it. Once the patriarchs are set up, you can't just ignore them, regardless of whether one patriarch was the original parent of another.HocCogitathttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06009439035501099762noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4999044146888823867.post-59164916929692834332011-07-05T17:29:47.379-05:002011-07-05T17:29:47.379-05:00No, I was merely showing that Rome's been the ...No, I was merely showing that Rome's been the surest guide for orthodoxy throughout history. I don't think I need to claim any more for the papacy than what the First Vatican Council claimed for it ... a Council which, by the way, we consider an Ecumenical Council. Is there any principled reason it isn't?Joe Heschmeyerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06998682878420098470noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4999044146888823867.post-2156903342473680462011-07-05T17:21:25.582-05:002011-07-05T17:21:25.582-05:00Do you really want to expand infallibility to ever...Do you really want to expand infallibility to everything the pope thinks about that has been formally defined in the past, even if it isn't formally stated, addressed to the whole church, etc? That seems quite beyond what Vatican 1 claimed.HocCogitathttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06009439035501099762noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4999044146888823867.post-14024824548139885712011-07-05T17:13:24.733-05:002011-07-05T17:13:24.733-05:00Sort of. In a few cases (such as the one you cite...Sort of. In a few cases (such as the one you cited there of Pope John XXII), popes have held to incorrect beliefs which <b>weren't formally defined yet by the Church</b>. For the same reason, the Monophysites before Chalcedon are in a much different position than the Monophysites after Chalcedon. In one case, they're just wrong, and in the other, they're promoting what's (now) clearly heretical. <br /><br />In fact, in the case of Pope John XXII, he backed off of his views on the Beatific Vision after the College of Cardinals held a consistory on the subject. So I think his own conduct shows the difference between someone who holds an incorrect view when the matter hasn't been formally defined by the Church, and one who holds an incorrect view in defiance of the Church.Joe Heschmeyerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06998682878420098470noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4999044146888823867.post-63127282634500285252011-07-05T17:01:10.257-05:002011-07-05T17:01:10.257-05:00Wait. I thought Catholics admitted that there'...Wait. I thought Catholics admitted that there'd been heretic popes. Just that they did "formally define" the heresy. Like the one who thought we didn't receive the beatific vision till the general resurrection, etc.HocCogitathttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06009439035501099762noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4999044146888823867.post-18563859728751176972011-07-05T16:52:57.078-05:002011-07-05T16:52:57.078-05:00Brock,
One simple test is continuity. Can you af...Brock,<br /><br />One simple test is continuity. Can you affirm the public, <i>de fide</i> teachings of all of the popes without fear of contradiction? Yes, and Catholics do so. But you can't do that for the others. For example, Alexandria had a long string (from about 451 to 536) of alternating Chalcedonian and Monophysite Patriarchs. The two are mutually exclusive, so both sides simply can't be right. Without having to even inquire into which party was right, we can say that Alexandria was not free from heresy (since one side had to be heretical).<br /><br />Or take Antioch. The eleventh-century Patriarchs of Antioch were responsible for splitting with Rome and joining Eastern Orthodoxy, while another Patriarch of Antioch, Cyril VI, was responsible for bringing the Melkite Church back home to the Catholic Church in 1754.<br /><br />So <b>even if you assume Eastern Orthodoxy to be the true orthodoxy</b>, the Eastern Orthodox fail as an infallible guide, since there have been Patriarchs in each of the cities who advocated theologies or ecclessiologies which are now condemned by the Orthodox. <br /><br />Rome has been consistent where Constantinople, Antioch, Jerusalem, and Alexandria have been inconsistent. So if there's an infallible visible body on Earth, it has to be Rome.<br /><br />In Christ,<br /><br />JoeJoe Heschmeyerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06998682878420098470noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4999044146888823867.post-63868297027935926172011-07-05T16:41:49.747-05:002011-07-05T16:41:49.747-05:00Hey Brock,
Yeah, I've often heard that statem...Hey Brock,<br /><br />Yeah, I've often heard that statement made and thought it was a little self-fulfilling. <br /><br />However, using modern standards of what Christians would constitute as heresy (Modalism, Monothelitism etc.), we find that Rome remained remarkably free of these. Jerusalem, Antioch etc. were not so fortunate.<br /><br />God bless,<br /><br />David.Restless Pilgrimhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16401126921440086739noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4999044146888823867.post-85980891165157194252011-07-05T15:56:04.995-05:002011-07-05T15:56:04.995-05:00Brock, it's not possible for Rome to fall into...Brock, it's not possible for Rome to fall into heresy, because of the promises of Christ to St. Peter that are recorded in sacred scripture. God doesn't lie.<br /><br />If you are a Protestant, it may be an interesting experiment to sit down with a good history of the popes/councils, and go through and mark the times that any gathering of the church's bishops embraced what you believe to be heresy in something like a council. You will find that you and the bishop of Rome are, miraculously, on the same page for at least hundreds of years, through every single controversy that rocked the church until at least 500 AD (and possibly up to 800 AD, depending on the sort of Protestantism you embrace). You and the pope will always be on the same page. That even goes for many non-doctrinal issues, such as when to celebrate the great feast of Easter. How would you account for this? Pure coincidence?Kevin Vancehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15349012158952879251noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4999044146888823867.post-46895301510425807272011-07-05T15:38:59.325-05:002011-07-05T15:38:59.325-05:00I've always thought it was interesting when pe...I've always thought it was interesting when people say, "Rome has never fallen to heresy". <br /><br />Rome is the one the declares heresy. Why would it declare itself heretical? Even when it does "bad" things it attempts to excuse/justify them or apologizes for its actions.<br /><br />Can you explain to me why it would even be possible for Rome to be heretical if papal authority and succession are valid?Brock Talkshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09990965125533607727noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4999044146888823867.post-51395713450486024682011-07-05T15:15:32.821-05:002011-07-05T15:15:32.821-05:00Is there no real difference between a patriarch-sh...Is there no real difference between a patriarch-ship and a bishopric? Sorry, I am a little out of my depths hereHocCogitathttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06009439035501099762noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4999044146888823867.post-48157463679789193812011-07-05T14:19:22.131-05:002011-07-05T14:19:22.131-05:00A majority of whom? The patriarchs? Which ones? Th...A majority of whom? The patriarchs? Which ones? The bishops of the whole church meeting in council?<br /><br />In terms of just those five patriarchies (which is a completely arbitrary number, and includes at least one patriarch--Constantinople--that really shouldn't be included in the list), then I'm not sure. At Ephesus (#3), the Patriarchs of Constantinople and Antioch embraced heresy and were condemned and deposed by the council. At the 6th council, Antioch and Alexandria embraced heresy, while Constantinople turned away from it during the course of the proceedings. These would be 2 and 2 decisions, with the "patriarch of Rome" as a fifth patriarchal vote, in both cases for orthodoxy. This still wouldn't resolve the problem of how to determine who the real patriarch is once you have rival churches in one patriarchy, as in Alexandria after the council of chalcedon, which would still require communion with Peter as a mark of catholicity.Kevin Vancehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15349012158952879251noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4999044146888823867.post-12792757349963899162011-07-05T14:18:50.203-05:002011-07-05T14:18:50.203-05:00HocCogitat,
If by "the majority of them"...HocCogitat,<br /><br />If by "the majority of them" you mean a majority of Alexandria, Antioch, Constantinople, and Jerusalem, then yes, on the "Filoque controversy." But to even arrive at this answer, you have to ignore everything Kevin said.<br /><br />Go back to his (excellent) comment. He raises two questions:<br /><br />(1) Who determines which cities are patriarchates?<br /><br />(2) Who determines who the patriarch is of that city?<br /><br />So to even answer the question of whether a majority of patriarchs agree with Rome, we have to know the answers to these two questions. For number one, on what basis would we count Constantinople and not, say, Venice? For number two, if we count the vote of Alexandria, do we go with the Greek Orthodox Patriarch of Alexandria, the Coptic Patriarch of Alexandria, or the Catholic Coptic Patriarch of Alexandria?<br /><br />The core problem is simple: you can't just make up an endless series of alternative standards to avoid papal authority. The simple fact is, Scripture depicts Peter as the head of the Apostles, and depicts him as going to Rome. Early Church testimonies tell us that his successors, the lineage of Roman bishops, continued to maintain a headship over the other churches, and Rome is unique amongst the major Sees in having never fallen into heresy, over 2000 years.<br /><br />No Church, not the Catholic Church, not the Orthodox Church, not any of the Protestant denominations I know of, use a "Rome plus at least two other Patriarchates" test for determining the institutional movement of the Holy Spirit. There's no Scriptural or Patristic authority. So even if it is true that at least two Patriarchates always sided with Rome until the Great Schism, that would simply be a testimony to Rome's orthodoxy, not some secondary principle.<br /><br />Rather, the historical evidence shows that the other Patriarchs deferred to Rome, and it's on the basis of papal authority alone that the Eastern Orthodox have Seven Ecumenical Councils instead of eight -- or none.<br /><br />God Bless,<br /><br />Joe.Joe Heschmeyerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06998682878420098470noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4999044146888823867.post-55603524608655619702011-07-05T13:42:55.321-05:002011-07-05T13:42:55.321-05:00Were the majority of them ever opposed to Rome on ...Were the majority of them ever opposed to Rome on something now held heretical? Otherwise you could say that a majority including Rome is necessary.HocCogitathttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06009439035501099762noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4999044146888823867.post-71423173766175258222011-07-05T13:28:25.809-05:002011-07-05T13:28:25.809-05:00"So that when he acted along with the other p..."So that when he acted along with the other patriarchs, that was authoritative, but not now when he acts alone?"<br /><br />This doesn't work. First, who determines what a patriarchy is? Apart from Rome, the other most ancient but lesser patriarchies were Antioch and Alexandria. Both of these were important because of their connection to the Petrine ministry (St. Peter had been bishop of Antioch, and his follower St. Mark had been bishop at Alexandria). The patriarchs of the other major sees were established later. Second, who determines who the patriarch is? Antioch, Jerusalem, and Alexandria each have many rival patriarchs. Finally, each of these patriarchies fell into heresy early on in the history of the Church, at least at (important) times. The council of Chalcedon had the bishop of Rome but was opposed by the patriarch of Alexandria. That didn't make the Council of Chalcedon illegitimate, did it?Kevin Vancehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15349012158952879251noreply@blogger.com