Schism and Photius

[dzheremi]

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

I disagree with this characterization of what is going on. It's not "debating" to point out who actually convened and chaired the earliest ecumenical councils, for instance. It's informing, which I can understand that the RCC wouldn't like, because the actual ecclesiology of the early Church is obviously not what they say it is, but that doesn't make it a debate any more than when Orthodox and RCs are involved in a discussion that they are in agreement about, such as when countering the assertions of a certain type of Protestant that the RC Pope/RCism in general as a thing is responsible for everything bad that has ever befallen the Christians or Christianity anywhere. Both cases are correcting an obviously skewed historical narrative which, if left unaddressed by those who are prepared to address it, results in a situation where blatantly false pseudo-histories appear to be given equal weight as things that are supportable with reference to the historical record. That's not something any of us should consider acceptable, at least not if we care more about being informative than being "right" in the sense of "winning an argument" (which is not synonymous with "being right" in the first place).

To put it more bluntly, it is not a question of "having a debate that you can win", because it's not necessary to have any kind of debate in order to point out, e.g., that it was not the Roman Catholic pope's prerogative to convene, chair, or confirm the early ecumenical councils. When that was effectively countered earlier in this thread, it wasn't so that RC apologists could come back and suggest that, no, it was not HH St. Alexander of Alexandria who chaired Nicaea, but in fact his Roman counterpart (y'know, as would be expected and appropriate in an actual debate), since there is not a shred of historical evidence pointing to that being the case. Or, rather, RCs can assert something so blatantly wrong if they wish because it would better fit with their idea of how the early Church must've worked, but that doesn't retroactively change what has already been uncontroversially accepted as the basic facts of who did what when and where, which don't change according to who is looking at them (hence this sort of information can be found in any mainstream encyclopedia about history; it doesn't even have to broach different conceptions of the Church as they are held in different communions, because HH Pope Alexandria is not only recognized as having chaired Nicaea by Coptic people like me, but by everyone).

So it's not about "winning" -- it's about recognizing facts about history that don't even touch deeper questions of ecclesiology for anyone who doesn't have the identity of their particular church so wrapped up in this stuff as to deny propositions like emperors convening the councils, rather than the Roman Pope (or anyone else, for that matter). Things which no one else denies because there's no reason to in the absence of having a preferred ahistorical narrative to present that can't even handle said basic facts.

 

[Xeno.of.athens]

I disagree with this characterization of what is going on. It's not "debating" to point out who actually convened and chaired the earliest ecumenical councils, for instance. It's informing, which I

Who actually dot dot dot. What that means in truth is "Who we say", "we" being some Orthodox people. The Catholic Church says otherwise. It has said otherwise for 1,700 years give or take a decade.

Scholars, such as those involved in producing the Encyclopaedia Britannica, [ Council | History, Types & Significance ], say:

After Constantine I proclaimed toleration for the Christians (313) and persecution ended, it was possible for bishops from many provinces to convene in a general council. The idea of an ecumenical council and its special authority, however, was slow to develop. The term ecumenical council was first used by the historian Eusebius (died c. 340) in his life of Constantine to describe the Council of Nicaea (325), which was summoned by Constantine. Such imperially summoned councils and ordinary provincial councils differed sharply, but the distinction was more of size and practice than of defined authority. The decisions of such a council were obviously more binding than were those of earlier provincial councils because the emperor made them effective in secular law. It was not at first evident, however, that there might be a peculiar sacredness about the decisions of such a council because all councils were believed to be under the guidance of the Holy Spirit. After the Council of Nicaea (325), the idea developed that its decisions could not be reformed, and Athanasius argued that Nicaea was an especially sacred council because it was attended by bishops from all parts of the church. The councils of Ephesus (431) and of Chalcedon (451) declared that the decisions of Nicaea were unalterable. But it was assumed, rather than formally stated, that ecumenical councils, once recognized to be such, could not err. In practice, the idea of irreformable canons was often confined to matters of faith. In matters of discipline later councils continued to alter the decisions of earlier ecumenical councils, for changing circumstances often made the old canons irrelevant or unenforceable.​

Catholics say that the councils are not Oecumenical until the pope accepts them and are regarded as infallible only in those canons and other materials that the pope approves explicitly. What Christians from the various Orthodox traditions (OO, EO, and any others that may exist) do is up to them, but for Catholics a council is not Oecumenical unless it is approved by the pope.

 

[dzheremi]

Who actually dot dot dot. What that means in truth is "Who we say", "we" being some Orthodox people.

No. Very much not meaning that. It is not the opinion of "some Orthodox people" that the ecumenical councils were convened by the Emperor, not the Roman Pope. For heaven's sake, in the source you share in this reply it literally states (emphasis added):

The term ecumenical council was first used by the historian Eusebius (died c. 340) in his life of Constantine to describe the Council of Nicaea (325), which was summoned by Constantine.

So...thanks for sharing something that appears to agree on this matter with the consensus of mainstream scholars and historians, I guess. I don't know why you think this sort of thing is supportive of your stance, but it's good to see the non-sectarian truth acknowledged in the quoted text, even if the same isn't acknowledged by the one who is sharing the text.

Catholics say that the councils are not Oecumenical until the pope accepts them and are regarded as infallible only in those canons and other materials that the pope approves explicitly. What Christians from the various Orthodox traditions (OO, EO, and any others that may exist) do is up to them, but for Catholics a council is not Oecumenical unless it is approved by the pope.

I understand that. My point is that your belief that this is how things ought to or do in fact work does not somehow retroactively change who convoked or chaired any particular council. You can believe that (e.g.) Nicaea was not considered ecumenical until "approved" by the bishop of Rome; completely unrelated to that, it is a historical fact recognized by everyone (except you and your coreligionists; except when it is -- see above) that this council was convoked by Emperor Constantine (not the Pope of Rome) and presided over by HH Pope Alexander of Alexandria (also not the Pope of Rome).

These are basic historical facts that really aren't a matter of who belongs to what communion. You can either accept them or ignore them in favor of Roman unreality. Either way, they remain historical facts.

 

[Xeno.of.athens]

the ecumenical councils were convened by the Emperor, not the Roman Pope.

This claim is a clear nonsense, there have been twenty one Oecumenical councils and for most of them there has either been no emperor or no emperor's decree to call the bishops to convene. But in every case, in all twenty one councils, the pope has approved and ratified the doctrinal and moral canons and decrees of the councils. This is not so for any other person, not for any bishop of the East, be he a three council, seven council, or eight and more council bishop unless said bishop became at a later date the bishop in Rome, and hence successor of saint Pater the Rock.

thanks for sharing something that appears to agree on this matter with

"appears" is the best you can manage because Constantine and whatever other emperor you choose to name had no role whatever in approving and ratifying as doctrinal truth and true and accurate moral teaching any of the products of any of the Oecumenical councils, not one of the twenty-one thus far held.

I understand that. My point is that your belief that this is how things ought to or do in fact work does not somehow retroactively change who convoked or chaired any particular council.

Cardinal Gibbon's remark, quoted in the Original Posat of this thread, says:

Third—Ecumenical Councils afford another eloquent vindication of Papal supremacy. An Ecumenical or General Council is an assemblage of Prelates representing the whole Catholic Church. A General Council is to the Church what the Executive and Legislative bodies in Washington are to the United States.​

Up to the present time nineteen twenty Ecumenical Councils have been convened, including the Council of the Vatican. The last eleven twelve were held in the West, and the first eight in the East. I shall pass over the Western Councils, as no one denies that they were subject to the authority of the Pope.​

I shall speak briefly of the important influence which the Holy See exercised in the eight Oriental Councils.​

The first General Council was held in Nicæa, in 325; the second, in Constantinople, 381; the third, in Ephesus, in 431; the fourth, in Chalcedon, in 451; the fifth, in Constantinople, in 553; the sixth in the same city, in 680; the seventh, in Nicæa, in 787, and the eighth, in Constantinople, in 869.​

The Bishops of Rome convoked these assemblages, or at least consented to their convocation; they presided by their legates over all of them, except the first and second Councils of Constantinople, and they confirmed all these eight by their authority. Before becoming a law the Acts of the Councils required the Pope's signature, just as our Congressional proceedings require the President's signature before they acquire the force of law.​

Is not this a striking illustration of the Primacy? The Pope convenes, rules and sanctions the Synods, not by courtesy, but by right. A dignitary who calls an assembly together, who presides over its deliberations, whose signature is essential for confirming its Acts has surely a higher authority than the other members.​

Say what you like, Cardinal Gibbons is far more a scholar than any in CF, and what he has to say about the convening of councils is correct, but your posts persist in playing games with the meanings of his words. Your absurd contention that the Cardinal claims that every council was called by some papal summons is not worth discussion, it is just wrong. The pope convenes councils in the sense that no council is Oecumenical without papal sanction on its deliberations and decisions. "The Bishops of Rome convoked these assemblages, or at least consented to their convocation" is what the Cardinal wrote. And his subject is the eight oecumentical councils held in the east of the Roman Empire. The eighth council is rejected by the [Eastern] Orthodox. I agree with the Cardinal. I disagree with you.

The councils in the west, councils nine through twenty-one, are much more directly summoned by the pope in Rome,

 

[Xeno.of.athens]

This may be useful for @dzheremi

The first eight ecumenical councils, which played a crucial role in shaping Christian doctrine and practice, were convened in the East, specifically in the area we now know as Turkey. Here’s a breakdown of who called each of these significant councils:

1. First Council of Nicaea (325): This council was convoked by Roman Emperor Constantine the Great in response to an appeal by a synod of Spanish bishops.
2. First Council of Constantinople (381): Also called the Second Ecumenical Council, it repudiated Arianism and Macedonianism, affirming that Christ is “born of the Father” and “homoousios with the Father”.
3. Council of Ephesus (431): The Third Ecumenical Council was convened to address the Nestorian controversy. It upheld the title of Mary as Theotokos (Mother of God) and condemned Nestorius’s teachings.
4. Council of Chalcedon (451): The Fourth Ecumenical Council clarified the nature of Christ, affirming that He is both fully divine and fully human, without confusion or separation.
5. Second Council of Constantinople (553): The Fifth Ecumenical Council focused on theological issues related to the nature of Christ and the Holy Spirit.
6. Third Council of Constantinople (680-681): The Sixth Ecumenical Council addressed the Monothelite controversy, affirming that Christ has both a divine and a human will.
7. Second Council of Nicaea (787): The Seventh Ecumenical Council dealt with the veneration of icons and restored their use in Christian worship.
8. Fourth Council of Constantinople (869-870): Although not universally recognized as ecumenical, it addressed the Photian Schism and other theological disputes.

It’s important to note that while the emperor called the first eight councils, the pope was typically consulted, invited, or both, but mostly the Holy Father sent representatives or legates. (see Your guide to the ecumenical councils of the Church )

 

[dzheremi]

This claim is a clear nonsense

It's what your source claims. Why did you share it if you don't agree with it?

there have been twenty one Oecumenical councils and for most of them there has either been no emperor or no emperor's decree to call the bishops to convene.

Oh please. You do realize that you are posting in a mixed-confession environment (presumably on purpose), right? This would be akin to me insisting that there have only been three ecumenical councils, and anyone who thinks otherwise is obviously wrong because blahblahblah. This is the exact opposite of sticking to historical claims that do not depend on the confessional identity of the person making them or reacting to them, which is vastly preferable to what you are doing in recent posts precisely because of the multi-confessional environment of this particular subforum. If instead you just want an echo chamber where your opinion comes out of everyone else's "mouths", surely it would be better to post on one of the Catholic-specific subforums that exist specifically to be safe havens for Catholics.

But in every case, in all twenty one councils, the pope has approved and ratified the doctrinal and moral canons and decrees of the councils. This is not so for any other person, not for any bishop of the East, be he a three council, seven council, or eight and more council bishop unless said bishop became at a later date the bishop in Rome, and hence successor of saint Pater the Rock.

Why on earth would you ever think that this is something to bring up as a positive? You're basically saying, without necessarily realizing that this is how it comes off to anyone who isn't RC, "Our entire existence as a Church depends not on Christ, but on whoever happens to be 'in the chair' in Rome, and that's something that makes us so obviously better than everyone else." That's just baffling to me.

Also, I feel the need to emphasize here that Rome is not now and has never been the only claimant to St. Peter's legacy as a bishop, as St. Peter first served as a bishop in Antioch before coming to Rome. This means that the various claimants to Antioch (Catholic uniates and non-Catholics alike) have just as much of a claim to being successors to St. Peter as the Pope of Rome does (some would probably say more, as there is actually not a lot of direct evidence of St. Peter actually serving as a bishop in Rome).

"appears" is the best you can manage because Constantine and whatever other emperor you choose to name had no role whatever in approving and ratifying as doctrinal truth and true and accurate moral teaching any of the products of any of the Oecumenical councils, not one of the twenty-one thus far held.

No, "appears" is me purposely hedging my language out of recognition that the Encyclopedia Britannica is not a traditional source of teaching or historiography within any particular church or tradition that I am aware of, so I would trust it more with dates and figures than with explanations as to who was doing what and why. All this stuff about "approving or ratifying as doctrinal truth and true and accurate moral teaching" is just extraneous stuff that you are adding to try to pivot away from the claim I was actually addressing -- namely, that the RC Pope had some sort of role in convoking the Councils or presiding over them. That claim was made earlier in this thread, and it is absolutely contradicted by 100% of the historical record.

Say what you like, Cardinal Gibbons is far more a scholar than any in CF,

Why's that -- because he agrees with you?

but your posts persist in playing games with the meanings of his words.

What are you talking about? Are there many different meanings of words like "convoke" or "preside" that I am somehow unaware of, such that it is somehow accurate to claim that the Roman Pope convoked or presided over the early councils (which was the claim)? I guess my master's degree in linguistics is useless against such a powerful intellect as we are observing here. Hmm.

Your absurd contention that the Cardinal claims that every council called by some papal summons is not worth discussion, it is just wrong.

I don't even know what you're trying to say here. Can you please rephrase this so that it is understandable?

The pope convenes councils in the sense that no council is Oecumenical without papal sanction on its deliberations and decisions. "The Bishops of Rome convoked these assemblages, or at least consented to their convocation" is what the Cardinal wrote. And his subject is the eight oecumentical councils held in the east of the Roman Empire. The eighth council is rejected by the [Eastern] Orthodox. I agree with the Cardinal. I disagree with you.

I'm not talking about anything having to do with the EO in the first place. They're here. They're able to voice their own ideas, which I am as free to reject as I would any RC idea about this topic that is wrong, were they to make such claims (if they do, I haven't seen them here, but that's not the point in the first place). Your attempt to make recognizing what has actually happened in history into a bunch of sectarian fighting really falls flat when dealing with such uncontroversial topics as who chaired or convoked a particular council. Notice how we have not been discussing weightier theological topics here -- just who chaired what, or who convoked what. Again, the sort of thing you can find in any work dedicated to history from a secular perspective. You're trying to make this into Orthodox people just hating on Catholicism because it isn't Orthodoxy when that is demonstrably false. That's not the argument we're having. Deal with what is actually being discussed, please.

The councils in the west, councils nine through twenty-one, are much more directly summoned by the pope in Rome,

Well sure, but that doesn't really mean anything for our discussion, since the question has never been "Does the RC Pope summon RC-specific councils that are not recognized by any other church?" I doubt anyone cares what the RCC does with what it calls ecumenical councils that haven't actually involved anyone else in centuries, since there is not even an attempt to have them actually be ecumenical (there might be EO observance, but that's a far cry from anything approaching a joint council that could be binding upon others if they more directly participated in them).

 

[Xeno.of.athens]

Indeed it is impossible for @dzheremi to win twice a debate he already won. Now rather this thread has taken on the character or a victory lap for him.

Well, your post evidences a misunderstanding of the discussion thread too, this is not a debate forum. "Winning" is an adolescent sort of approach to discussion.

 

[prodromos]

The arguments being made by the OP have an awful lot in common with the flat earthers on CF.

 

[Xeno.of.athens]

The arguments being made by the OP have an awful lot in common with the flat earthers on CF.

That's quite funny. Not credible. Just funny.

 

[The Liturgist]

Well, your post evidences a misunderstanding of the discussion thread too, this is not a debate forum. "Winning" is an adolescent sort of approach to discussion.

if you don’t want General Theology to be a debate forum, then perhaps stop debating? There exists OBOB, the Roman Catholic forum, wherein you can post even the most controversial aspects of RC theology, and only other Catholics ars allowed to debate you. Also CF.com features Member Blogs, which you might find useful.

However General Theology has always served as a venue for theological debates, and there are even guides on how to debate charitably among the sticky threads.

 

[The Liturgist]

That's quite funny. Not credible. Just funny.

I think the point @prodromos is making is that you are insisting upon a dogmatic approach to history, rather than an empirical, fact-driven approach, just as some members insist that science is wrong and the world is flat because they believe that dogmatically from their own interpretation of the Bible. However this approach differs, ironically, from the philosophical approach of St. Thomas Aquinas and the Scholastic theologians, and also from the majority of Patristic thinkers, and has more in common with Restorationist and Fundamentalist thought.

Specifically, Adventists and Landmark Baptists reject a historical interpretation of the Council of Nicaea on religious grounds. And you are taking a similiar approach, by denying, on the basis of a dogmatic theology, something most Roman Catholics readily admit, that being that the Council of Nicaea was convened and presided over by St. Constantine, to deal with a heresy that arose in the Greek church, at which Pope St. Alexander of Alexandria was supported by his Roman counterpart, who sent two legates to represent Roman interests. Arianism was, to Rome’s credit, always resisted by them, particularly by St. Damasus, with St. Isidore of Seville becoming the Latin equivalent of Pope St. Athanasius of Alexandria in terms of his commendable work contra Arianism.

However it is not the case that the Bishop of Rome, who would not even be officially styled as Pope until 539 ( also, not referring to Popes St. Alexander, St. Athanasius and St. Cyril by their title as Pope of Alexandria is somewhat annoying), convened Nicaea, presided over it vicariously, or made its results ecumenical. Indeed the whole reason the councils are called Ecumenical is because their results were universally accepted by the Orthodox Catholic Christians of Antioch, Alexandria, Jerusalem, Constantinople and Cyprus, and by Roman Catholic Christians of the Western Empire.

 

[Xeno.of.athens]

if you don’t want General Theology to be a debate forum

It isn't really, but some treat it as an informal roughhouse "debate" forum.

 

[Xeno.of.athens]

I think the point @prodromos is making

Let @prodromos write for himself.

 

[jas3]

this is not a debate forum

You keep saying this, but the statement of purpose says otherwise:

General Theology Statement of Purpose

The General Theology forums are for discussing and debating the various theological doctrines of the Christian faith.

 

[Xeno.of.athens]

You keep saying this, but the statement of purpose says otherwise:

But it is very clear that the discussion in this thread is not a debate, it is a free for all, anyone can write what they like (within boundaries) and many write about topics quite unrelated to the thread's topic. So, despite the theoretical possibility of a debate the reality is that this thread is just a rambling discussion with no winners no losers and no points, it lacks the form of a debate, it is just the sort of "debate" one may find in a pub between people who are keen to share their opinions and even quote from treasured authorities, but it is not a debate.

 

[prodromos]

Let @prodromos write for himself.

@The Liturgist nailed it

 

[The Liturgist]

@The Liturgist nailed it

Thank you sir. And I do apologize in that I did not intend to be presumptious or steal your rhetorical thunder, but rather I sought to articulate your position based on our long standing friendship and the esteem in which I hold you and your contributions to the forum.

On my planned trip to Australia perhaps we might have dinner if I pass through your neck of the woods, which will likely depend very much on whether there are any interesting railways, churches or monasteries or geological features that might interest my mother, if she accompanies me, in the area. We are both railfans and into aviation as well, and transportation more generally. My mother is also very much into horses.

 

[Xeno.of.athens]

Thank you sir. And I do apologize in that I did not intend to be presumptious or steal your rhetorical thunder, but rather I sought to articulate your position based on our long standing friendship and the esteem in which I hold you and your contributions to the forum.

On my planned trip to Australia perhaps we might have dinner if I pass through your neck of the woods, which will likely depend very much on whether there are any interesting railways, churches or monasteries or geological features that might interest my mother, if she accompanies me, in the area. We are both railfans and into aviation as well, and transportation more generally. My mother is also very much into horses.

I live in Western Australia, in Perth, and there are some monasteries here, one in New Norcia (it is the only monastery town in Australia, the order there is Benedictine), and we have a number of geological features in the state but they can be some distance from Perth.

 

[prodromos]

On my planned trip to Australia perhaps we might have dinner if I pass through your neck of the woods

That would be wonderful.

 

[Xeno.of.athens]

Photius was anathematised by the fourth council of Constantinople, it has never been retracted, never been withdrawn, though for the sake of oecumenical relations it is de-emphasised in the Catholic Church.