Three apostolic sees

[Xeno.of.athens]

I recommend you read Francis Dvornik for an up to date historical analysis.

I have, and it is not relevant to the period under discussion and the perceptions held in the period under discussion.

 

[Xeno.of.athens]

Again, I don't understand why you think Chalcedon has anything to do with this question. We're talking about Roman ecclesiology versus the ecclesiology of every other see of antiquity, not Christology.

You asked for official views, I gave them. If by "you" you mean me, then you have misread my post, but if by "you" you mean "the Catholic Church between 451 and a few decades ago" then I gave you what you asked for.

 

[ViaCrucis]

If Rome is excluded, then the first council of Constantinople would not be oecumenical. Is that where the Orthodoxies of the east and Lutheranism want to go?

I don't see how that follows. Note that I'm not claiming Rome was/is excluded. The arguments you presented, as written, came across as saying Rome refused to fully accept what the rest of the Church accepted. If that is the case, then Rome would be guilty of breaking unity. The ecumenical status of the Council(s) doesn't change. It only means that Rome refuses to follow the rules everyone else agreed to follow.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[Xeno.of.athens]

I don't see how that follows.

A council cannot be "according to the whole" that is to say, Catholic, if it excludes a church that is acknowledged to be a Christian church.

 

[dzheremi]

A council cannot be "according to the whole" that is to say, Catholic, if it excludes a church that is acknowledged to be a Christian church.

That's not even what ecumenical means, though (which matters; they're not called "Catholic councils", they're called "ecumenical councils"). As you note, "Catholic" is according to the whole (Gr. katholikos, from phrase kath' holou "on the whole, in general," from kata "about" + genitive of holos "whole"). "Ecumenical", on the other hand, refers to the whole of the inhabited world (Gr. oikoumenikos "from the whole world," from he oikoumene ge "the inhabited world (as known to the ancient Greeks)"). We still see this sense used secularly when geographers sometimes use the word ecumene to refer to the whole inhabited world. (Sources: The Online Etymology Dictionary and Merriam-Webster)

So an ecumenical council a council whose decisions are meant to be applied to the Church in the whole world (and hence presumably have representation from the bishops of all the world's churches, although in practice this was not always the case, due to various entanglements; the Armenians were unable to have representatives at Chalcedon, for instance, due to the aftermath of losing the Battle of Avarayr against the Persians in May of that year; this is the reason why it took the Armenians a while to react to Chalcedon, because they didn't know what had happened there until investigating the matter for themselves after being told by the local Nestorians that the Greeks and Latins now agreed with them, and the Armenians were now the heretical party; this is covered in the two letters of HH Catholicos Babken, who eventually oversaw the council at Dvin that rejected Chalcedon in 506).

Again, if every individual church needs to be present in order for a council to be considered ecumenical (rather than that being the sometimes unrealized ideal), then how is it that the RCC has 20+ or however many councils that they call ecumenical? There was no participation of any other churches in most of those.

 

[Yeshua HaDerekh]

I am not really sure how to approach your post.

Official information is your stated preference. So, officially speaking, after 451 OO are in schism and are no longer in communion with the Catholic Church (which at this time, 451 AD) included the remaining Orthodoxies which had not yet separated from the Catholic Church.

The Orthodox ARE the Catholic Church. Rome separated itself from it. It broke canons that it herself had agreed to which then resulted in schism.

 

[ViaCrucis]

A council cannot be "according to the whole" that is to say, Catholic, if it excludes a church that is acknowledged to be a Christian church.

That would render most of the ecumenical councils non-ecumenical. Not just the 14 councils which only Rome acknowledges, but it would effectively render everything after Constantinople (381) non-ecumenical.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[Fervent]

What do you think I ought to look for in First Corinthians?

I'd start with:

For it has been reported to me by Chloe's people that there is quarreling among you, my brothers. 12 What I mean is that each one of you says, “I follow Paul,” or “I follow Apollos,” or “I follow Cephas,” or “I follow Christ.” 13 Is Christ divided? Was Paul crucified for you? Or were you baptized in the name of Paul? 14 I thank God that I baptized none of you except Crispus and Gaius, 15 so that no one may say that you were baptized in my name. 16 (I did baptize also the household of Stephanas. Beyond that, I do not know whether I baptized anyone else.) 17 For Christ did not send me to baptize but to preach the gospel, and not with words of eloquent wisdom, lest the cross of Christ be emptied of its power.

Especially since your entire premise seems to be "I follow Peter."

 

[dzheremi]

Especially since your entire premise seems to be "I follow Peter."

Not only that, but the modern RCC ecclesiology really downplays St. Peter's time in Antioch, for obvious reasons (since there are more than just RC uniates who claim Antioch, like the Syriac Orthodox Church, or the Antiochian Orthodox Church in the EO communion). For all the care they have for Christian history, the modern RCC does a real hatchet job on a lot of it, from the point of view of every historic see outside of the Latin West.

This has the effect of messing up all the other churches in communion with the RCC, too. Even such staunchly Catholic churches as the Maronite Church in Lebanon and the surrounding area obviously have a different historical background when you consider that a great many of their prayers come from anti-Chalcedonian saints like St. Jacob of Serugh. They're not really allowed to explore that, though, and instead have to parrot the lie that they bravely stood for Chalcedon against anti-Chalcedonian oppressors (blaming 6th century Syriac Orthodox patriarch and saint Severus of Antioch for the martyrdom of some 350 monks of their confession along the way, despite there being no evidence of any commemoration of this supposed event in the Maronite Church's own calendar prior to the 17th century; just for example!), which is nonsense.

So you see by examples like this how ahistorical RC nonsense begets other types of ahistorical, self-contradicting nonsense from those who are willing to put up with it all for the sake of "following Peter", even though they don't even have to do that if that's the goal (because, again, the Syriac Orthodox and the Antiochian EO both exist).

 

[prodromos]

In reverse order, I have let Newadvent.org state the errors as they were perceived from ninth century until the 20th century when Newadvent.org "Catholic Encyclopaedia" was published.

The 'scholarship' of the Catholic Encyclopedia regarding St Photius is out of date and in serious error. You need to use up to date sources such as Francis Dvornik

I used Orthodoxies because I want to include all the shades of Orthodoxy, OO is not the same as EO historically speaking. It's just shorthand. And it is useful as a plural of Orthodox as Catholics is a plural of Catholic.

except in post #78 you use the same to describe the Eastern Orthodox independent of the Oriental Orthodox. The Eastern Orthodox Church is one. It is not a plurality of various "orthodox" as your post implies.

 

[prodromos]

I have, and it is not relevant to the period under discussion and the perceptions held in the period under discussion.

Of course it is relevant. You speak of Photius' 'errors' in the present tense.

 

[Xeno.of.athens]

That's not even what ecumenical means

It is what Catholic means. And they are called oecumenical councils of the Catholic Church. They are not Arian, nor gnostic, nor Manichee, nor any other body's councils, just of the Catholic Church - still speaking "officially".

 

[Xeno.of.athens]

Of course it is relevant. You speak of Photius' 'errors' in the present tense.

You've confused my opinions with official Catholic opinion from the 9th century until the 20th century. My answers were "official opinion", not dogma or doctrine, as requested by @dzheremi.

 

[Xeno.of.athens]

The 'scholarship' of the Catholic Encyclopedia regarding St Photius is out of date and in serious error. You need to use up to date sources such as Francis Dvornik

except in post #78 you use the same to describe the Eastern Orthodox independent of the Oriental Orthodox. The Eastern Orthodox Church is one. It is not a plurality of various "orthodox" as your post implies.

You say it is one, you are EO and so speak as one on the inside; my posts offer "official opinion" in the time period from 9th until 20th centuries. František Dvorník is not from that period, his work came after that - and do not confuse 20th century in the previous sentence with the whole century from 1901 until 2000, it is 20th century from 1901 until whenever the Catholic Encyclopaedia from Newadvent.org was published (1907 through to 1912).

 

[dzheremi]

You've confused my opinions with official Catholic opinion from the 9th century until the 20th century. My answers were "official opinion", not dogma or doctrine, as requested by @dzheremi.

I am not related in any way to your conversation with any EO members about Photius.

Also, what I stated was in the context of ecumenical relations (that it doesn't matter what laypeople want in this context, since we're not the ones involved in ecumenical talks between our communions). I never stated that you cannot state your own opinion. Your opinion is as welcome here as anyone's. Maybe even more so, since you started this thread in the first place.

 

[Xeno.of.athens]

I am not really sure how to approach your post.

Official information is your stated preference. So, officially speaking, after 451 OO are in schism and are no longer in communion with the Catholic Church (which at this time, 451 AD) included the remaining Orthodoxies which had not yet separated from the Catholic Church.

I am not sure how Constantinople, and Antioch saw themselves in 451, probably they were in substantial agreement with Rome. So, after 451 the OO were treated as Monophysites and since that was defined as heresy, I guess OO were regarded as heretical or something. Sometime later it was slowly agreed that OO Monophysites were not really Monophysites. You can tell me how OO see themselves on this issue.

In reverse order, I have let Newadvent.org state the errors as they were perceived from ninth century until the 20th century when Newadvent.org "Catholic Encyclopaedia" was published.

I will skip past that; it is not for me to explain.

I used Orthodoxies because I want to include all the shades of Orthodoxy, OO is not the same as EO historically speaking. It's just shorthand. And it is useful as a plural of Orthodox as Catholics is a plural of Catholic.

The 'scholarship' of the Catholic Encyclopedia regarding St Photius is out of date and in serious error. You need to use up to date sources such as Francis Dvornik

except in post #78 you use the same to describe the Eastern Orthodox independent of the Oriental Orthodox. The Eastern Orthodox Church is one. It is not a plurality of various "orthodox" as your post implies.

Please, give me a break, look at the posts, they are #78, and #79, #78 addressed to @dzheremi and #79 addressed to @prodromos. And they both deal with "official opinion" in the period from the 9th century until 1907-1912. And in #78 there wasn't a separate Orthodoxy, but I used Orthodoxies for what was yet to come by 1907 to 1912 when the Newadvent.org Catholic Encyclopaedia was written.

 

[Xeno.of.athens]

I am not related in any way to your conversation with any EO members about Photius.

Also, what I stated was in the context of ecumenical relations (that it doesn't matter what laypeople want in this context, since we're not the ones involved in ecumenical talks between our communions). I never stated that you cannot state your own opinion. Your opinion is as welcome here as anyone's. Maybe even more so, since you started this thread in the first place.

I know my opinions are welcome. I do not intend to alienate you. I stuck with "official opinion" because I formed the view that for the purposes of this thread's discussion it is what you believed mattered. My own opinions are influenced my more modern Catholic scholarship and by my own theological, historical, and other interests. But my opinions do not carry the weight that official opinions do. And giving my own opinion on such contentious matters in a discussion involving people from many traditions seems to be even more confusing to readers than me giving official opinions as reflected in the Catholic Encyclopaedia of 1907-1912.

 

[prodromos]

You say it is one, you are EO and so speak as one on the inside; my posts offer "official opinion" in the time period from 9th until 20th centuries. František Dvorník is not from that period, his work came after that - and do not confuse 20th century in the previous sentence with the whole century from 1901 until 2000, it is 20th century from 1901 until whenever the Catholic Encyclopaedia from Newadvent.org was published (1907 through to 1912).

The Catholic Encyclopedia is not "official opinion". It is the opinion of its authors.

 

[Xeno.of.athens]

The Catholic Encyclopedia is not "official opinion". It is the opinion of its authors.

It is much more official than my opinion. But I use the quote marks to indicate that the phase is not exactly accurate.

 

[Xeno.of.athens]

I'd start with:

For it has been reported to me by Chloe's people that there is quarreling among you, my brothers. 12 What I mean is that each one of you says, “I follow Paul,” or “I follow Apollos,” or “I follow Cephas,” or “I follow Christ.” 13 Is Christ divided? Was Paul crucified for you? Or were you baptized in the name of Paul? 14 I thank God that I baptized none of you except Crispus and Gaius, 15 so that no one may say that you were baptized in my name. 16 (I did baptize also the household of Stephanas. Beyond that, I do not know whether I baptized anyone else.) 17 For Christ did not send me to baptize but to preach the gospel, and not with words of eloquent wisdom, lest the cross of Christ be emptied of its power.

Especially since your entire premise seems to be "I follow Peter."

My premise is that I am a Catholic and it is pointless to pretend otherwise but at the same time I am following the Lord Jesus the best I can, what else can I do? I have looked into Protestantism of the Presbyterian and Baptist kinds, I have looked into the AoG and Charismatic movement, I have look into Anglicanism, now I encounter Lutherans and a host of others online. I read their posts, attended some churches, and now that I am older and retired I remain Catholic because it seems true to me and it is where I find the Holy Spirit and the Son and the Father present and in me.

CC to @dzheremi.