Question regarding Ecumenical Councils

[abacabb3]

so, how do you deal with Chalcedon? because canonical bishops, to include canonical patriarchs of Alexandria, Antioch, and Jerusalem would reject it or accept it depending on who was enthroned. did it go from being ecumenical to not ecumenical until the schism?

how do you deal with our Constantinople IV, which everyone accepted and was called the 8th Ecumenical Council by East and West for over a century before Rome changed her mind?

plus, the example you gave was from when Rome was in the Church. nowhere does your quote say anything if a See departs the Church.

Chalcedon had full episcopal reception, including from the Alexandrine synod. This is why the Non Chalcedonians today all stemp from John of Tella and Jacob Bar Addai almost 100 years after Chalcedon, who made an entirely new line of episcopal succession.

In other words, they are nakedly schismatics with a whole new line of bishops. The original line, our own, accepted Chalcedon. mainstream scholarship recognizes this BTW (Yonatan Moss, WHM Frend, for example).

As for what occurs when Rome departs the Church, indeed Nicea 2 does not specify. And so, without any other definition for an ecumenical council with wide acceptance from the fathers, i do not see how we can specify otherwise. However, we have had no lack of authoritative pan-orthodox councils outside of the ecumenical councils.

It may help if you watch that video above.

 

[ArmyMatt]

Chalcedon had full episcopal reception, including from the Alexandrine synod.

it did at times, at times it didn’t.

This is why the Non Chalcedonians today all stemp from John of Tella and Jacob Bar Addai almost 100 years after Chalcedon, who made an entirely new line of episcopal succession.

from our POV, yes. however, the point is that in the aftermath of Chalcedon, we both recognize bishops that reject and accept the council.

As for what occurs when Rome departs the Church, indeed Nicea 2 does not specify. And so, without any other definition for an ecumenical council with wide acceptance from the fathers, i do not see how we can specify otherwise.

again, looking at history of the council’s being accepted, the need for all bishops accepting isn’t there. Ephesus was ecumenical from the moment it was called and professed truth against heresy, not after the formula of reunion years later when Antioch accepted it.

 

[abacabb3]

it did at times, at times it didn’t.


from our POV, yes. however, the point is that in the aftermath of Chalcedon, we both recognize bishops that reject and accept the council.


again, looking at history of the council’s being accepted, the need for all bishops accepting isn’t there. Ephesus was ecumenical from the moment it was called and professed truth against heresy, not after the formula of reunion years later when Antioch accepted it.

The reception of a council does not depend on times far beyond its full reception. How many doubt the 5th's council anathema of Origen today? But no one did at the time.

An ecumenical council is ecumenical the moment it occurs, yes, but pentarchic reception is the epistemic means we discern its actual existence.

 

[ArmyMatt]

An ecumenical council is ecumenical the moment it occurs, yes, but pentarchic reception is the epistemic means we discern its actual existence.

that assumes the pentarchy still exists. it doesn’t since Rome fell away.

plus, again, Constantinople IV disproves this since that WAS accepted by the pentarchy for 100 years and was called the 8th ecumenical council by both East and West until the Franks took over the papacy.

plus, there is also the false council of Florence where St Mark of Ephesus was the only bishop to stand against the false union with Rome. by your logic we were united with Rome since the pentarchy agreed to it (we weren’t, because of St Mark).

 

[abacabb3]

that assumes the pentarchy still exists. it doesn’t since Rome fell away.

plus, again, Constantinople IV disproves this since that WAS accepted by the pentarchy for 100 years and was called the 8th ecumenical council by both East and West until the Franks took over the papacy.

plus, there is also the false council of Florence where St Mark of Ephesus was the only bishop to stand against the false union with Rome. by your logic we were united with Rome since the pentarchy agreed to it (we weren’t, because of St Mark).

Precisely.It *does* presume the Pentarchy still exists...which is why we don't have Ecumenical COuncils anymore, we have Pan Orthodox Councils.

Do we have a single conciliar document without Rome that calls itself Ecumenical?

I think you are not understanding the nominal difference. Just like we don't have APostolic councils anymore with their passing and we don't have Ecumenical Councils anymore because of Rome's schism, that does not mean we don't have equally binding Pan-Orthodox Synods.

As evidence, I even pose COnstantinople 920 which literally canonizes Photian's Nomocanon. No one calls it ecumenical, but we treat all the canons as absolutely authoritative.

Hence, what you are positing here is non-canonical, based on the misunderstanding that the inability to hold an ecumenical council is a defect. It isn't. Rome cannot hold a Pan-Orthodox synod. They cannot bind anything. They are schismatics. We, meanwhile, can still operate as the Church as she akways has operated...even though it seems like the hierarchs often lack the will to do so.

 

[ArmyMatt]

Do we have a single conciliar document without Rome that calls itself Ecumenical?

Constantinople V was called Ecumenical after it’s calling, and many theologians have argued it is the 9th. plus Constantinople IV which Rome currently rejects is also called Ecumenical. in fact, feast days have been made with hymns and prayers have been written. the most recent proposal was that these be formally ratified when folks gathered in Crete.

so yes, we do.

and again, the pentarchy agreed to Florence. it was a bishop in Ephesus who rejected it.

 

[PsaltiChrysostom]

What is the status of the 1672 Synod of Jerusalem? I thought there were commentaries that some of the statements are a little too Latinized such as transubstantiation.

 

[ArmyMatt]

What is the status of the 1672 Synod of Jerusalem? I thought there were commentaries that some of the statements are a little too Latinized such as transubstantiation.

ecumenical status, but not a formal ecumenical council.

 

[JSRG]

And then I realised that the doctrine of the Holy Spirit guiding the Church and Christ saying that the gates of hell will not overcome it completely undermines the Church's claims about the central importance of free will. If people have free will, then everyone could apostasise and there be no-one left for the Holy Spirit to work through. If people have free will, every Orthodox Christian on earth could decide to follow a different confession, or a different religion, or no religion at all. The claim that there is this absolute certainty about the future of the Church cannot be reconciled with free will. And yet so many of the arguments that the Church Fathers made about doctrine were based on the supposed truth of free will. The entire basis of the Church's doctrine on sin and repentance, on asceticism, on holiness and Sainthood, and the repudiation of things like astrology, rely on free will.

How does this undermine free will any more than any other promise by God regarding the in the Bible?