- Aug 4, 2013
- 4,988
- 2,479
- 75
- Country
- United States
- Faith
- Eastern Orthodox
- Marital Status
- Married
Okay. I was Facebooking and ran into a chap who has asked me a question I can't really answer well regarding papal supremacy. I am in red, he is in black.
Right, councils happen, but if there is no ultimate authority other than consensus of Bishops, then you couldn’t settle a dispute where many Bishops believed X and many believed not X
You misunderstand a council. The Holy Spirit is the one who leads the council. The trust of the Church is that the council will be led by the Holy Spirit to the truth.
Yeah, but that hasn't been the case, has it?
But who settles the issue to declare what the Holy Ghost wants?
Yes it has
Example:
Ephesus II had 150 Bishops
And is not accepted by Orthodox
Yet, they accepted Constantinople I and II which had less Bishops present
And on whose authority did they accept or reject certain councils?
Why can the Orthodox simply decide they won’t accept Lateran I, or Trent? Or Vienne?
But let me get back to my question from a second ago: when Jesus walked on earth, did he runs things by committee and democracy? Could the majority vote of the Apostles overridden the will of Christ?
I would have to study Ephesus II (the notorious "Robber's Council") to be better understand it, but I have the feeling that there were politics and ego involved. The same happened with the Fifth Council in which Origen and the "Three Chapters" were condemned. Later scholarship has found that Emperor Justinian meddled with the council and with the canons of the council. Why do you not trust that the Holy Spirit of God can lead the councils just as Christ led the Apostles?
That’s my point Edward
There is a leader
One leader
Not a council. A valid council looks like a democracy but it isn’t. The Holy Ghost ultimately is running the show.
He needs one mouthpiece to speak through, or else there will be confusion
If there isn’t a final Vicar of Christ on earth, then if some Bishops agree on issue X but some disagree on issue X, who settles the dispute?
You can’t escape this logic Edward
Your saying at this point, “After studying, I have serious problems with the Western idea”
Whether you have personal issues with it doesn’t get you out of the logic
None of those issues contradict or go against any other truth
They all fit quite nicely
You are using your own authority to reject them
You must use your own authority to reject them though because your theology removes their being a final leader, a Vicar of Christ.
There*
So, you have made yourself into your own Pope
All the while protesting that such a thing doesn’t exist
Do you see the absurdity?
I do see the absurdity IF I was depending upon my own judgment. I am agreeing with the judgment of a higher authority, the Church of the East.
You reject Papal infallibility and Supremacy but you need the councils to be infallible and supreme in order to have a working theology. And you have no way to answer who settles a major dispute when many Bishops are on both sides of an issue.
Who decided Ephesus II was a robber Council?
Some of the Bishops?
Well 150 other Bishops attended and thought it was legitimate
So who makes the final ruling?
A Bishop who has final and ultimate authority to judge all things in the Church in manners of government and in clarifying doctrinal disputes
And who has the ability to speak infallibly in all issues of faith or morals that the Universal Church must believe
If we don’t have this, we can’t know anything about Christianity with certainty. It’s all personal opinion.
It sounds nice and fair to say all the Bishops are equal
But in practice, it doesn’t work
Human companies aren’t run that way. One CEO or owner leads the way and handles all final arguments.
Father’s have dominion over their families as ultimate authority
Everything is hierarchical with God
Okay, guys. Please help me out here.
**BTW - I was not looking for a fight. I was talking with someone else and identified myself as Orthodox in my theological understanding. This guy is apparently a very dedicated RC who sent me a PM and challenged me.
Right, councils happen, but if there is no ultimate authority other than consensus of Bishops, then you couldn’t settle a dispute where many Bishops believed X and many believed not X
You misunderstand a council. The Holy Spirit is the one who leads the council. The trust of the Church is that the council will be led by the Holy Spirit to the truth.
Yeah, but that hasn't been the case, has it?
But who settles the issue to declare what the Holy Ghost wants?
Yes it has
Example:
Ephesus II had 150 Bishops
And is not accepted by Orthodox
Yet, they accepted Constantinople I and II which had less Bishops present
And on whose authority did they accept or reject certain councils?
Why can the Orthodox simply decide they won’t accept Lateran I, or Trent? Or Vienne?
But let me get back to my question from a second ago: when Jesus walked on earth, did he runs things by committee and democracy? Could the majority vote of the Apostles overridden the will of Christ?
I would have to study Ephesus II (the notorious "Robber's Council") to be better understand it, but I have the feeling that there were politics and ego involved. The same happened with the Fifth Council in which Origen and the "Three Chapters" were condemned. Later scholarship has found that Emperor Justinian meddled with the council and with the canons of the council. Why do you not trust that the Holy Spirit of God can lead the councils just as Christ led the Apostles?
That’s my point Edward
There is a leader
One leader
Not a council. A valid council looks like a democracy but it isn’t. The Holy Ghost ultimately is running the show.
He needs one mouthpiece to speak through, or else there will be confusion
If there isn’t a final Vicar of Christ on earth, then if some Bishops agree on issue X but some disagree on issue X, who settles the dispute?
You can’t escape this logic Edward
Your saying at this point, “After studying, I have serious problems with the Western idea”
Whether you have personal issues with it doesn’t get you out of the logic
None of those issues contradict or go against any other truth
They all fit quite nicely
You are using your own authority to reject them
You must use your own authority to reject them though because your theology removes their being a final leader, a Vicar of Christ.
There*
So, you have made yourself into your own Pope
All the while protesting that such a thing doesn’t exist
Do you see the absurdity?
I do see the absurdity IF I was depending upon my own judgment. I am agreeing with the judgment of a higher authority, the Church of the East.
You reject Papal infallibility and Supremacy but you need the councils to be infallible and supreme in order to have a working theology. And you have no way to answer who settles a major dispute when many Bishops are on both sides of an issue.
Who decided Ephesus II was a robber Council?
Some of the Bishops?
Well 150 other Bishops attended and thought it was legitimate
So who makes the final ruling?
A Bishop who has final and ultimate authority to judge all things in the Church in manners of government and in clarifying doctrinal disputes
And who has the ability to speak infallibly in all issues of faith or morals that the Universal Church must believe
If we don’t have this, we can’t know anything about Christianity with certainty. It’s all personal opinion.
It sounds nice and fair to say all the Bishops are equal
But in practice, it doesn’t work
Human companies aren’t run that way. One CEO or owner leads the way and handles all final arguments.
Father’s have dominion over their families as ultimate authority
Everything is hierarchical with God
Okay, guys. Please help me out here.
**BTW - I was not looking for a fight. I was talking with someone else and identified myself as Orthodox in my theological understanding. This guy is apparently a very dedicated RC who sent me a PM and challenged me.