|
0 members (),
493
guests, and
111
robots. |
|
Key:
Admin,
Global Mod,
Mod
|
|
|
Forums26
Topics35,530
Posts417,670
Members6,182
| |
Most Online4,112
Mar 25th, 2025
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2005
Posts: 2,855 Likes: 8
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Mar 2005
Posts: 2,855 Likes: 8 |
Now all of this was necessary (i.e., a close reading of the text of the Tome) simply because St. Leo was sloppy in his use of language and made it sound at times as if he thought that the two natures were subjects of action, when in fact there is only one subject of action in the incarnate Christ, i.e., the eternal and uncreated person (hypostasis) of the Logos. As you admitted, Pope St. Leo's Tome was addressed against Eutyches, not Nestorius. So we should expect that it may express the Faith a little differently than if the focus of the remonstrance was Nestorius. So it wasn't "sloppy" in the least. Or perhaps you would rather admit that the Fourth Ecumenical Council was "sloppy." Or perhaps you would like to accuse the First Ecumenical Council of "sloppiness" as well? After all, the language of its Creed left open the possibility of supporting the Pneumatomachi. The fact is, brother Todd, just as the First Ecumenical Council used language which properly addressed a particular heresy, but was imperfect for other issues, Pope St. Leo likewise used language which properly addressed a particular heresy, but was imprefect for other issues. Thankfully Cyril's own writings are sufficient to dispense with both the Nestorian and the Eutychian heresies, and so the Church remains secure in her undefiled faith. But just as we don't accuse the First Ecumenical Council of "sloppiness," we shouldn't go around accusing Pope St. Leo of "sloppiness." A pope, when it is deserved, is not above criticism. The same holds for an ecumenical council.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2003
Posts: 1,132
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Oct 2003
Posts: 1,132 |
A pope, when it is deserved, is not above criticism. The same holds for an ecumenical council. And like a faithful Catholic, he did not act without the consent of the protos, Pope St. Celestine. Amen. Blessings, Marduk
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2005
Posts: 2,855 Likes: 8
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Mar 2005
Posts: 2,855 Likes: 8 |
A pope, when it is deserved, is not above criticism. The same holds for an ecumenical council. And like a faithful Catholic, he did not act without the consent of the protos, Pope St. Celestine. Amen. Blessings, Marduk I think St. Cyril did a lot of acting with and without Pope Celestine, e.g., I do not think that he asked Pope Celestine whether it was okay for him to write to Nestorios. One of the things that is important to remember is that the position of the protos at the universal level is only analogous to that of the protos at the regional and local levels, because there is only a universal protos when an ecumenical council is in session, which does not happen often. P.S. - I also think that Pope Celestine acted with and without the consent of all the bishops, because he knew that his primacy was really only actualized when an ecumenical council was being celebrated.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2003
Posts: 1,132
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Oct 2003
Posts: 1,132 |
Dear brother Todd, So you really want to say that what happened at the third ecumenical council is irrelevant? Can you please explain this statement? You may have failed to read my post in context. So I don't know what this could possibly mean. As far as your question about primary sources is concerned, I answered it. I told you where to find the information. It is not my fault that it is in Latin and Greek. Nevertheless, as I pointed out, you can find many histories of the Council of Chalcedon that will confirm what I have said, and that even give - - on occasion - quotations in English of the sections of the acts I have alluded to in my posts. Look it up, and confirm it for yourself, or if you want me to supply you with some good history texts I will be glad to post a brief bibliography. I have already suggested a great text by Fr. McGuckin, a text which is readily available at libraries around the United States and which is for sale at Amazon.com. An "I don't know" would have sufficed. I know you want to avoid saying that Leo's Tome was judged against the writings of St. Cyril, because you have to try and defend the late 19th century idea that the pope can teach infallibly in the official documents he issues. But I have no need to worry about that because I reject that idea, and it is very clear from the actions taken at the Council of Chalcedon that none of the bishops present thought that the pope was infallible, since they - with the cooperation of the imperial representatives who chaired the council - created a committee in order to examine Leo's Tome and confirm its orthodoxy. Sorry if that makes you upset, but history is replete with things that make ideologically motivated people upset. Really? "Pope St. Leo's Tome was found to agree with the letters of Pope St. Cyril." No big deal. As already stated, since ex cathedra decrees cannot go beyond the Deposit of Faith, and St. Cyril's letters were considered part of Sacred Tradition at the time, one should hope that Pope St. Leo's Tome met the standards of Pope St. Cyril's letters. No big deal. It seems the only one who thinks it is a big deal is you. This is apparently due to another of your misunderstandings of the Vatican Decree on the Infallibility of the Magisterium of the Pope. For some strange reason, you think that just because a bishop wishes to investigate the orthodoxy of a papal decree claimed to be infallible, then this disproves the Vatican teaching somehow. Please permit me to explain. Infallibility gauges one thing and one thing only - whether a teaching is a Truth from God. It is not a gauge of whether the teaching is actually accepted (we should hope it is). Nor is it a gauge of the conscience of individuals nor of the actions that their conscience dictates in their journey to acceptance. A teaching that is infallible is objectively true because it is from God. What one does to determine its acceptance is inconsequental. That determination has no bearing on the objective Truth of the teaching because, as stated, it is a Truth from God. The Ecumenical Council determined that Pope's St. Leo's Tome was God's Truth. It is thereafter ludicrous to claim (as you do) that it was the Council's acceptance, or a bishop's determination of its orthodoxy, which somehow gave the teaching of the Tome its quality as God's Truth (i.e., infallible). If it was God's Truth, then it was objectively true even before any subjective determination of any bishop. Do you seriously suppose that when St. Peter infallibly promulgated the first ex cathedra decree (that there was no impediment for the Gentiles to be received into the Church), that it was any less the Truth (i.e., infallible) before the Church accepted the teaching than it was after the Church accepted the teaching? To repeat, if you find pleasure in the fact that Pope St. Leo's Tome was tested against Pope St. Cyril's letters, then have a ball. But know that it has no bearing on the Dogma of the Infallibility of the Magisterium of the Pope. Blessings, Marduk
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2005
Posts: 2,855 Likes: 8
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Mar 2005
Posts: 2,855 Likes: 8 |
So you really want to say that what happened at the third ecumenical council is irrelevant? Can you please explain this statement? You may have failed to read my post in context. So I don't know what this could possibly mean. I am sorry, perhaps I gave you more credit than I should have, because I thought by "outside the council" you meant the previous council, but evidently - if I am reading you right this time - you are talking about the committee appointed by and within the council, and are referring to it as "outside the council." I hope that is not your meaning, but if it is I think you need to read up a bit more on how the councils of the Church operated during the first millennium.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2005
Posts: 2,855 Likes: 8
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Mar 2005
Posts: 2,855 Likes: 8 |
As far as your question about primary sources is concerned, I answered it. I told you where to find the information. It is not my fault that it is in Latin and Greek. Nevertheless, as I pointed out, you can find many histories of the Council of Chalcedon that will confirm what I have said, and that even give - - on occasion - quotations in English of the sections of the acts I have alluded to in my posts. Look it up, and confirm it for yourself, or if you want me to supply you with some good history texts I will be glad to post a brief bibliography. I have already suggested a great text by Fr. McGuckin, a text which is readily available at libraries around the United States and which is for sale at Amazon.com. An "I don't know" would have sufficed. But I do know, which is why I told you to get a copy of Mansi. After all you said you wanted the primary source text.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2005
Posts: 2,855 Likes: 8
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Mar 2005
Posts: 2,855 Likes: 8 |
Really? "Pope St. Leo's Tome was found to agree with the letters of Pope St. Cyril." No big deal. As already stated, since ex cathedra decrees cannot go beyond the Deposit of Faith, and St. Cyril's letters were considered part of Sacred Tradition at the time, one should hope that Pope St. Leo's Tome met the standards of Pope St. Cyril's letters. No big deal. What was "no big deal" to me was what you said in the text below: No problem there. The Decree on infallibility asserts that the Pope cannot exceed the boundaries of the Deposit of Faith. It is irrelevant whether a bishop decides to test the Pope's public teaching with Tradition. Your fixation on papal infallibility is simply not important to me. Please try to keep the quote boxes connected to the actual statements made in response to them.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2003
Posts: 1,132
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Oct 2003
Posts: 1,132 |
A pope, when it is deserved, is not above criticism. The same holds for an ecumenical council. And like a faithful Catholic, he did not act without the consent of the protos, Pope St. Celestine. Amen. I think St. Cyril did a lot of acting with and without Pope Celestine, I should hope he did things even without Pope St. Celestine. After all, he was the Pope of Alexandria. Pope St. Celestine would have only been involved if it concerned a matter of the universal Church. e.g., I do not think that he asked Pope Celestine whether it was okay for him to write to Nestorios. Actually, he did not even consider it prudent to break communion with Nestorius until he consulted with his protos. He wrote to Pope St. Celestine: " We have not confidently abstained from communion with him [Nestorius] before informing you of this. condescend, therefore, to unfold your judgment, that we may clearly know whether we ought to communicate with him who cherishes such erroneous doctrine." One of the things that is important to remember is that the position of the protos at the universal level is only analogous to that of the protos at the regional and local levels, Agreed. because there is only a universal protos when an ecumenical council is in session, which does not happen often. The apostolic Canon (Apostolic Canon 34) does not give such a restriction (may I ask what ancient canon would justify your position?) That is why the Catholic Church teaches that a collegial action of the bishops of the world concerning the universal Church, even when dispersed, requires the consent of the head (the Pope). I guess that is why Pope St. Cyril sought the consent of Pope St. Celestine first regarding Nestorius - because St. Cyril had the prescience to know that Nestorius' heresy had the potential to affect the entire Church. Blessings, Marduk
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2005
Posts: 2,855 Likes: 8
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Mar 2005
Posts: 2,855 Likes: 8 |
Do you seriously suppose that when St. Peter infallibly promulgated the first ex cathedra decree (that there was no impediment for the Gentiles to be received into the Church), that it was any less the Truth (i.e., infallible) before the Church accepted the teaching than it was after the Church accepted the teaching? Why is it that you always try to read the novel 19th century theory of the Roman Church into the first millennium (or in this case the 1st century)? I don't think that St. Peter ever issued an "ex cathedra" decree, but he did receive revelation, which is something no bishop can do.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2005
Posts: 2,855 Likes: 8
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Mar 2005
Posts: 2,855 Likes: 8 |
e.g., I do not think that he asked Pope Celestine whether it was okay for him to write to Nestorios. Actually, he did not even consider it prudent to break communion with Nestorius until he consulted with his protos. He wrote to Pope St. Celestine: " We have not confidently abstained from communion with him [Nestorius] before informing you of this. condescend, therefore, to unfold your judgment, that we may clearly know whether we ought to communicate with him who cherishes such erroneous doctrine." I see no mention of a "protos" in the letter, and I have a feeling that St. Cyril wrote to many bishops for support and not merely Celestine. The bishops used to do that a lot, but that tradition has fallen out of use for the pope who now acts like a general commanding his troops.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2005
Posts: 2,855 Likes: 8
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Mar 2005
Posts: 2,855 Likes: 8 |
The apostolic Canon (Apostolic Canon 34) does not give such a restriction (may I ask what ancient canon would justify your position?) That is why the Catholic Church teaches that a collegial action of the bishops of the world concerning the universal Church, even when dispersed, requires the consent of the head (the Pope). I guess that is why Pope St. Cyril sought the consent of Pope St. Celestine first regarding Nestorius - because St. Cyril had the prescience to know that Nestorius' heresy had the potential to affect the entire Church. I know it is hard for you. You always ignore the second part of Canon 34, but it is there even if you ignore it. ". . . But let him [i.e., the protos] not do anything without the consent of all; for it is by this means there will be unanimity, and God will be glorified by Christ, in the Holy Spirit" (Canon 34 of the Apostles). The lopsided Roman theory of the 19th century is an innovation.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2005
Posts: 2,855 Likes: 8
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Mar 2005
Posts: 2,855 Likes: 8 |
Mardukm,
You and I will never agree about the nature of primacy within synodality.
Be that as it may, we have now taken Fr. Deacon Lance's thread off its actual topic, which is the Council of Chalcedon and the miaphysite and dyophsite views espoused there on Christology. It might be good if we got back to the real topic.
God bless,
Todd
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2003
Posts: 1,132
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Oct 2003
Posts: 1,132 |
But just as we don't accuse the First Ecumenical Council of "sloppiness," we shouldn't go around accusing Pope St. Leo of "sloppiness." A pope, when it is deserved, is not above criticism. The same holds for an ecumenical council. Well, at least you're consistent, though I can't say I appreciate or respect the casual way you mock the Sacred authorities of the Church. Blessings, Marduk
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2003
Posts: 1,132
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Oct 2003
Posts: 1,132 |
The apostolic Canon (Apostolic Canon 34) does not give such a restriction (may I ask what ancient canon would justify your position?) That is why the Catholic Church teaches that a collegial action of the bishops of the world concerning the universal Church, even when dispersed, requires the consent of the head (the Pope). I guess that is why Pope St. Cyril sought the consent of Pope St. Celestine first regarding Nestorius - because St. Cyril had the prescience to know that Nestorius' heresy had the potential to affect the entire Church. I know it is hard for you. You always ignore the second part of Canon 34, but it is there even if you ignore it. ". . . But let him [i.e., the protos] not do anything without the consent of all; for it is by this means there will be unanimity, and God will be glorified by Christ, in the Holy Spirit" (Canon 34 of the Apostles). The lopsided Roman theory of the 19th century is an innovation. The High Petrine view has no problem with the second part of Canon 34. But it is consistently obvious you have a problem with the first part. The "Roman" theory is not a lopsided innovation. Only your own interpretation is lopsided, since it doesn't take into consideration the context of the entire Decree, but focuses myopically only on certain statements - the exact same error of the Absolutist Petrine advocates, btw.  Blessings, Marduk
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2005
Posts: 2,855 Likes: 8
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Mar 2005
Posts: 2,855 Likes: 8 |
The apostolic Canon (Apostolic Canon 34) does not give such a restriction (may I ask what ancient canon would justify your position?) That is why the Catholic Church teaches that a collegial action of the bishops of the world concerning the universal Church, even when dispersed, requires the consent of the head (the Pope). I guess that is why Pope St. Cyril sought the consent of Pope St. Celestine first regarding Nestorius - because St. Cyril had the prescience to know that Nestorius' heresy had the potential to affect the entire Church. I know it is hard for you. You always ignore the second part of Canon 34, but it is there even if you ignore it. ". . . But let him [i.e., the protos] not do anything without the consent of all; for it is by this means there will be unanimity, and God will be glorified by Christ, in the Holy Spirit" (Canon 34 of the Apostles). The lopsided Roman theory of the 19th century is an innovation. The High Petrine view has no problem with the second part of Canon 34. But it is consistently obvious you have a problem with the first part. The "Roman" theory is not a lopsided innovation. Only your own interpretation is lopsided, since it doesn't take into consideration the context of the entire Decree, but focuses myopically only on certain statements - the exact same error of the Absolutist Petrine advocates, btw. Blessings, Marduk I hate to tell you this, but I don't buy into your threefold "petrine" theory. Sorry. Moreover, I am always concerned when a person creates a schematic structure to read historical ideas through, because the danger is ever present that the person will try to conform history to his structure rather than let the chips fall where they may. Why not get back to the actual topic of the thread? Miaphysitism and dyophistism.
|
|
|
|
|
