Schism and Photius

[prodromos]

A Concilio Constantinopolitano I (March 25, 1981)

www.vatican.va

The Curia produced the above. Catholics will take it seriously.

And?
It doesn't address anything of the preceding discussion. I did find it interesting that in a letter focused on the Holy Sprit, your Pope was careful not to mention the filioque.

 

[dzheremi]

A Concilio Constantinopolitano I (March 25, 1981)

www.vatican.va

Do you have any source from closer to the council in question that would substantiate that this is how the actual ancient Church saw itself as functioning at the time? A document produced by the Vatican in 1981 fails on all fronts at being a piece of period-appropriate evidence for your claims.

The Curia produced the above. Catholics will take it seriously.

That's the problem. You're appealing to documents drafted by your own authorities (in the modern day, at that) who no one else recognizes to substantiate a historical view that no one else shares, and then when push comes to shove, apparently that's acceptable because "Catholics will take it seriously." Why bother attempting to address your arguments to non-Catholics, then?

 

[Xeno.of.athens]

That's the problem. You're appealing to documents drafted by your own authorities

Itis not a problem, it is a useful feature.

 

[Xeno.of.athens]

no one else recognizes to substantiate a historical view that no one else shares, and then when push comes to shove, apparently that's acceptable because "Catholics will take it seriously." Why bother attempting to address your arguments to non-Catholics, then?

Your complaint, quoted above, doesn't carry much weight. A Muslim might say the same sort of thing.

 

[Valletta]

Council of Ephesus

Ephesus, COUNCIL OF, the third ecumenical council, 431. The idea of this great council seems to have been due to Nestorius, the Bishop of Constantinople. St. Cy...

www.catholic.com

Claims are made in the article, however no quotations or citations are given to back up said claims. It is not a particularly useful reference for this discussion.

Here is some actual text of documents:

The Council Of Ephesus – 431 A.D. - Papal Encyclicals

Theodosius’s letter of 19 November 430 requested all those who had been summoned to be present at Ephesus on 7 June 431, the feast of Pentecost.

www.papalencyclicals.net

 

[dzheremi]

Itis not a problem, it is a useful feature.

It's a problem if you want to be taken seriously by anyone who isn't Roman Catholic.

 

[prodromos]

Council of Ephesus

Ephesus, COUNCIL OF, the third ecumenical council, 431. The idea of this great council seems to have been due to Nestorius, the Bishop of Constantinople. St. Cy...

www.catholic.com

Here is some actual text of documents:

The Council Of Ephesus – 431 A.D. - Papal Encyclicals

Theodosius’s letter of 19 November 430 requested all those who had been summoned to be present at Ephesus on 7 June 431, the feast of Pentecost.

www.papalencyclicals.net

Cool. Nothing in there supports the earlier claims regarding the papacy.

 

[The Liturgist]

A Concilio Constantinopolitano I (March 25, 1981)

www.vatican.va

The Curia produced the above. Catholics will take it seriously.

The Orthodox Church is Catholic. Please stop implicitly denying our catholicity.

 

[Valletta]

Cool. Nothing in there supports the earlier claims regarding the papacy.

To me the following excerpts show a confirmation by the pope and a recognition of the authority of the pope. The pope was no bystander. Note in the last excerpt the pope is acknowledged as the successor of St. Peter.

“The legate Projectus then says that the letter enjoins on the council, though they need no instruction, to carry into effect the sentence which the pope had pronounced.

Firmus, the Exarch of Caesarea in Cappadocia, replies that the pope, by the letter which he sent to the Bishops of Alexandria, Jerusalem, Thessalonica, Constantinople, and Antioch, had long since given his sentence and decision; and the synod—the ten days having passed, and also a much longer period—having waited beyond the day of opening fixed by the emperor, had followed the course indicated by the pope

This was a reply to Projectus, declaring that what the pope required had been done, and it is an accurate account of the work of the first session and of the sentence; canonical refers to the words of the sentence, “necessarily obliged by the canons”, and Apostolic to the words “and by the letter of the bishop of Rome“.

Philip, the pope’s personal legate, then thanked the bishops for adhering by their acclamations as holy members to their holy head—”For your blessedness is not unaware that the Apostle Peter is the head of the Faith and of the Apostles.”

When this had been done, the three legates severally pronounced a confirmation in the pope’s name.

“It is doubtful to none, nay it has been known to all ages, that holy and blessed Peter, the prince and head of the Apostles, the column of the Faith, the foundation of the Catholic Church, received from our Lord Jesus Christ, the Savior and Redeemer of the human race, the keys of the Kingdom, and that to him was given the power of binding and loosing sins, who until this day and for ever lives and judges in his successors. His successor in order and his representative, our holy and most blessed Pope Celestine…”

Council of Ephesus

Ephesus, COUNCIL OF, the third ecumenical council, 431. The idea of this great council seems to have been due to Nestorius, the Bishop of Constantinople. St. Cy...

www.catholic.com

 

[Valletta]

Catholi

The Orthodox Church is Catholic. Please stop implicitly denying our catholicity.

What statement implied denial? We call our own Church the Catholic Church, and thus we call ourselves Catholics. You call your own Church the Eastern Orthodox Church. You personally have decided we should be called Roman Catholics, but we have every right to call ourselves Catholics, just as you have a right to refer to your Church as Eastern Orthodox. Since the subject has come up, I thought you represented that Orthodox do not recognize non-Orthodox baptisms. Do you recognize Baptisms by my Church?

 

[Xeno.of.athens]

It's a problem if you want to be taken seriously by anyone who isn't Roman Catholic.

You presume that being taken seriously by yourself matters to me.

 

[Xeno.of.athens]

The Orthodox Church is Catholic. Please stop implicitly denying our catholicity.

Should I return the objection and ask you to stop referring to your church as "Orthodox" because the Catholic Church is Orthodox?

 

[The Liturgist]

Should I return the objection and ask you to stop referring to your church as "Orthodox" because the Catholic Church is Orthodox?

I haven’t denied Orthodoxy exists within the Roman Catholic Church. But the official name of our church is the Orthodox Catholic Church, just as the official name of the Assyrian church is the Assyrian Catholic Church of the East.

 

[Valletta]

I haven’t denied Orthodoxy exists within the Roman Catholic Church. But the official name of our church is the Orthodox Catholic Church, just as the official name of the Assyrian church is the Assyrian Catholic Church of the East.

The official name of our church is the "Catholic Church." Do you recognize Baptisms by my Church as being as valid as those Baptisms are within your own Church?

 

[dzheremi]

You presume that being taken seriously by yourself matters to me.

Oh, that's right. I forgot that I'm the only non-Catholic here who has ever made that point. Silly me.

Say, why is it that you post these sorts of threads on General Theology instead of one of the Catholic-specific subforums, again? You clearly want to be taken seriously by someone outside of your particular church, whether or not that includes me. Are replies like the one I'm replying to now helping you reach that goal? Frankly, I really doubt it.

 

[Xeno.of.athens]

I haven’t denied Orthodoxy exists within the Roman Catholic Church. But the official name of our church is the Orthodox Catholic Church, just as the official name of the Assyrian church is the Assyrian Catholic Church of the East.

The official name of my church is the Catholic Church.

 

[Xeno.of.athens]

Oh, that's right. I forgot that I'm the only non-Catholic here who has ever made that point. Silly me.

Say, why is it that you post these sorts of threads on General Theology instead of one of the Catholic-specific subforums, again? You clearly want to be taken seriously by someone outside of your particular church, whether or not that includes me. Are replies like the one I'm replying to now helping you reach that goal? Frankly, I really doubt it.

Stop complaining so much and write your replies to the thread topic; all will be well then.

 

[dzheremi]

Stop complaining so much and write your replies to the thread topic; all will be well then.

Okay, "dad". Sorry you don't like having to deal with viewpoints that don't agree with your own. I think I'll keep "complaining" (showing how RC ecclesiology is demonstrably false), though. For one thing, the input from non-Catholics here is the only thing that guarantees that any of your threads about RC ecclesiology and the historicity thereof have anything resembling actual historical content in them. That's pretty important, if we're going to talk about the history of the early Church. Y'know...like before 1981.

 

[prodromos]

To me the following excerpts show a confirmation by the pope and a recognition of the authority of the pope.

Of course they do to you.

“The legate Projectus then says that the letter enjoins on the council, though they need no instruction, to carry into effect the sentence which the pope had pronounced.

Firmus, the Exarch of Caesarea in Cappadocia, replies that the pope, by the letter which he sent to the Bishops of Alexandria, Jerusalem, Thessalonica, Constantinople, and Antioch, had long since given his sentence and decision; and the synod—the ten days having passed, and also a much longer period—having waited beyond the day of opening fixed by the emperor, had followed the course indicated by the pope

Except that they hadn't. They didn't simply excommunicate Nestorius as Pope Celestine had said, but heard the statements made by Nestorius in his responses to Cyril and made a decision based on that in council.

This was a reply to Projectus, declaring that what the pope required had been done, and it is an accurate account of the work of the first session and of the sentence; canonical refers to the words of the sentence, “necessarily obliged by the canons”, and Apostolic to the words “and by the letter of the bishop of Rome“.

They are being both polite, but also giving honor to the Bishop of Rome, as he was considered the first among the bishops

Philip, the pope’s personal legate, then thanked the bishops for adhering by their acclamations as holy members to their holy head—”For your blessedness is not unaware that the Apostle Peter is the head of the Faith and of the Apostles.”

The Apostle Peter, not the pope.

When this had been done, the three legates severally pronounced a confirmation in the pope’s name.

“It is doubtful to none, nay it has been known to all ages, that holy and blessed Peter, the prince and head of the Apostles, the column of the Faith, the foundation of the Catholic Church, received from our Lord Jesus Christ, the Savior and Redeemer of the human race, the keys of the Kingdom, and that to him was given the power of binding and loosing sins, who until this day and for ever lives and judges in his successors. His successor in order and his representative, our holy and most blessed Pope Celestine…”

Council of Ephesus

Ephesus, COUNCIL OF, the third ecumenical council, 431. The idea of this great council seems to have been due to Nestorius, the Bishop of Constantinople. St. Cy...

www.catholic.com

Interesting that on reading the Pope's 2nd letter the fathers responded with the following:

The Fathers then cried: “This is a just judgment. To Celestine the new Paul! To the new Paul Cyril! To Celestine, the guardian of the Faith! To Celestine agreeing with the Synod! The Synod gives thanks to Cyril. One Celestine, one Cyril! “​

 

[Xeno.of.athens]

Okay, "dad". Sorry you don't like having to deal with viewpoints that don't agree with your own. I think I'll keep "complaining" (showing how RC ecclesiology is demonstrably false), though. For one thing, the input from non-Catholics here is the only thing that guarantees that any of your threads about RC ecclesiology and the historicity thereof have anything resembling actual historical content in them. That's pretty important, if we're going to talk about the history of the early Church. Y'know...like before 1981.

You write as if this is a debate which you can win. It isn't.