www.byzcath.org Forums Faith & Christian Life The Christian East & West What west and east really believe

I know full well who the Visigoths are (or were). The point is (a) they lived at the periphery of the world and were not particularly important; (b) they were Arians or neo-Arians; and (c) the Council of Toledo inserted the Filioque for their catechetical benefit. You elevate the actions of a local council not recognized outside of Spain to the level of a council recognized as ecumenical throughout the entire world (including Spain). The Ostrogoths were equally Arian, but somehow when they were incorporated into the Catholic communion through the Church of Constantinople, they managed to do so without the Filioque.

Your problem is establishing a false conception of unanimous conception; it never meant "absolute numerical unanimity", as the outcome of the First Council of Nicaea indicates--it meant moral unanimity. And in the fifth and sixth centuries, there was real moral unanimity about the Council of Constantinople. Nobody rejected it within the Catholic communion; and nobody who did reject it remained within the Catholic communion.

Also, I will point out that, due to the exigencies of transportation and communication in late antiquity, it would not be unusual for people living on one periphery to go for years without receiving documents from the other, or for those documents to differ slightly in their different copies due to errors in translation and transcription. None of which is enough to change the reality of reception as the basis for determining ecumenicity.

I always keep in mind that through the Dark Ages the end of the Middle Ages, the west's theologians, lawyers and academics used an antiquated form of Latin and their peers in the east used an antiquated, formalistic version of Greek. As western civilization descended into the Dark Ages, those who were truly literate became an 'endangered species' and given the distances involved in communications, along with the risks involved with travel, it is remarkable that as much of our shared beliefs survived as they did.

I did not say that Toledo 6th century local council is an ecumenic one.
What you fail to grasp is that, according to the theory of reception by the whole church, in order for an pretending to be ecumenical council to really become such an one, then the fact that in the western church a considerable part of it (Spain, France, Germany) did not accept it in practice, it makes it non ecumenical. The conscience of the western church had not accepted it.

The logic used in relation to Ferrara Florence by the easterners compels us to come to this conclusion.

Secondly, by your last answers, by seing the visigoths and franks as peripherial church away from centre, we come to contradicting the theory of eucharistic church, according to which all bishops are the same, and where there in church is neither centre nor periphery.

This link may have been posted on the Forum before, but, in any case, Orthodox church historian, Peter Gilbert, who I knew personally and deeply respect, gives what I consider a very balanced and accurate explication of the history of the "Filioque" controvrsey on his blog. I think some may find it enlightening.

http://bekkos.wordpress.com/filioque-introduction/

IOW, he failed in his job by not condemning the change, although he performed it by putting up the silver plagues "POSUI AMORE ET CAUTELA ORTHODOXAE FIDEI" "put out of love and by defense of the Orthodox Faith" without the addition.

They are the same. That does not bestow on them telepathic powers. It took some time for the rest of the Church to find out what Toledo had done.

And no one approved of Toledo (just as no one outside the Patriarchate of the West approved of Florence), while everyone, as far as Spain, Britain and Ireland, accepted Constantinople I. Hence it is Ecumenical, while Toledo (and Florence) are not.

The far corners of the West accepted Constantinople I's ek tou Patros ekporevomenon (as that was the Gospel Truth from the lips of God the Word Himself). And no, Constantinople I was not recognized at Chalcedon: if that were true, how come the Nestorians recognized the Creed as they split from the Church decades before Chalcedon?

And people do not have to accept a Council for it to be Ecumenical:those who do remain in the Church, and those who don't go their own way.

Don't they call that Caesaropapism?

It is very simple, strange you ask about it!

A creed may originate before it is sanctioned by a council as ecumenic. Notice, I said it santioned at Chalcedon, I did not say it originates from it.

As for Chalcedon recognising Constantinople I as ecumenical, whereas Ephesus 431 does not even mention its existence, read 'Constantinople and the West' D. J. Geanakoplos, p.169.

Yea, and that's the illogic of the whole idea of reception as the sole criteria for a council to be ecumenical.
If you agree with it, then you've received it and thus its ecumenical.
If you don't agree with it, then you have left the Church, and it's ecumenical anyways.

IOW, it's ecumenical because we say it is.

What is this business of "Nestorians...split from the Church decades before Chalcedon"? Surely modern ecclesiastical historiography has clarified the position of Mar Nestorios as well as the orthodoxy of the (Assyrian) Church of the East!

Which has nothing to do with the Nestorians, who had, as I said, left the Church before Chalcedon and had already accepted Constantinople I. We know that, from among other things, from an exposition of of Theodore of Mopsuestia on the "Faith [i.e. Creed] of the 318 Fathers [of Nicea]" which expounds on the "Nicene Creed" as the Fathers of Constantinople I (and not Nicea I) set their seal on it. Theodore, of course, died (428) before the Ecumenical Council of Ephesus (431). Which brings up
If there were no Constantinople I (specifically its canon 3) there would have been no need of Ephesus:Nestorius would have been the suffragan of Heracleia, itself in the Patriarchate of Rome, and a local synod to depose the suffragan would have sufficed. Ephesus tried to avoid saying anything beyond Nicea I, which is why it issued no definition beyond its sentence of depositin of Nestorius. His predecessor on the throne, St. John Chrysostom, speaks of the world being brought into Ecumenical Council to witness the repose of Pat. St. Meletius (not in communion with, and condemned by, Rome at the time), who opened the Ecumenical Council of Constantinople I. We also have the Imperial edicts enforcing Constantinople (not determinative, but indicative).

And this is different from "it's ecumenical because one bishop says it is" how?

Some like to avoid existential questions, but that doesn't relieve them of the burden of making them. Not to choose is to chose.

It is rather simple:either by the grace of the Holy Spirit you recognize the Church in the Council and hear the Shepherd voice in it, or you don't. Either you fall for the councils of robbers and theifs, or by the grace of God, you don't. Someone draws a line-either the Shepherd of the Church or the Wolf of souls-and you stand on a side, not one foot on each side.

Recption is the only criteria which has been used in history to recognize a Council as Ecumenical. If He changes the system, He'll let us know.

Nestorius certainly wasn't a Nestorian.

Well, I don't think I'm avoiding existential questions. I think I'm pointing out a logical problem with the doctrine of reception.

When you say It is rather simple:either by the grace of the Holy Spirit you recognize the Church in the Council and hear the Shepherd voice in it, or you don't. Either you fall for the councils of robbers and theifs, or by the grace of God, you don't. Someone draws a line-either the Shepherd of the Church or the Wolf of souls-and you stand on a side, not one foot on each side.

This is a very convenient statement when one proclaims that they are the group hearing the Shepherd's voice, while it's that other group who's in the clutches of the Wolf of Souls.

If you just happened to be in communion with the Oriental Orthodox or the Assyrian Church of the East, would you then feel that way about the Orthodox with whom you are in communion with (or if you were Catholic for that matter).

The doctrine of reception works when you are the guys who's received it and that other guy is the heretic.

I argue with Protestants all the time about this same thing. Every side thinks their side is the one to whom is listening to the leadings of the Spirit and they have received the true faith, while it's those others who haven't.

Reception only works if you are willing to put into the equation that the guys that didn't receive it are automatically outside the Church. That being the case, when you remove this rather arbitrary condition, Councils like Chalcedon are not ecumenical because you have the problem of the Orthodox Copts and Orthodox Assyrians who never received it.

Lots of people don't like dealing with this inherent problem of reception (unless of course, you're the side making up these rules in which case it's just fine a dandy).