tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18902745.post3414180418182955830..comments2024-03-24T15:19:06.377-04:00Comments on The Continuum: Councils, Scripture and Catholic FaithFr. Robert Harthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05892141425033196616noreply@blogger.comBlogger6125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18902745.post-67022548127358032462008-07-16T17:52:00.000-04:002008-07-16T17:52:00.000-04:00The case of Chalcedon, then, brings up three possi...The case of Chalcedon, then, brings up three possibilities.<BR/><BR/>1. It appears that a majority of the patriarchs and bishops sufficed<BR/>to call Chalcedon "Ecumenical."<BR/><BR/>2. Adherence to doctrine that is established by the authority of scripture outweighed unanimity as a consideration (this is the view I would tend to favor).<BR/><BR/>3. Since heresy places a body outside of the Church, that body's consent or dissent has no weight.<BR/><BR/>Or, all of the above.<BR/><BR/>What we are told today, however, is that the so-called "Monophysites" did not understand the use of the word ὑπόστασις (or was it φύσις- or both?). Apparently they now believe the doctrine of Chalcedon, but still reject the authority of the Council.<BR/><BR/>This brings me to my actual point in what I wrote: "And, despite the fact that the See of Rome recognizes the full validity of the holy orders in oriental 'Non-Chalcedonian' churches, the aforesaid polemicists derive from their assumption further 'proof'..." This treatment is inconsistent.<BR/><BR/>Bill Tighe wrote:<BR/><BR/><I>Or, as I sometimes put it in other contexts, "if Chalcedon, why not Florence" and "if not Florence, then why Chalcedon?"</I><BR/><BR/>After the Great Schism, one Patriarch claiming to speak for the Universal Church fails to convince the Orthodox, and us. Furthermore, in some of the post 1054 Councils recognized only by Roman Catholics, we find points worthy of theological debate, not acceptance.<BR/><BR/>On that score, if it can't be demonstrated to have been taken out of scripture, it cannot be required of any man to be believed as necessary to salvation. In such cases the <I>Quod ubique, quod semper, quod ab omnibus creditum est</I> test has failed.Fr. Robert Harthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05892141425033196616noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18902745.post-60167879624630012382008-07-16T11:32:00.000-04:002008-07-16T11:32:00.000-04:00"The Melkites in Alexandria remained in communion ..."The Melkites in Alexandria remained in communion with the Ecumenical Patriarch (the Metropolitan) of Constantinople in 451. The Orthodox Patriarch of Alexandria claims to be the genuine successor of of St. Mark, Apostle and Evangelist."<BR/><BR/>There were no Melkites, to speak of, in Alexandria for nearly a century after Chalcedon. That is to say, to be more specific, that after Dioscoros' successor as Patriarch, Proterius, was lynched in 457 after endorsing Chalcedon, there wasn't another Chalcedonian patriarch there for nearly a century: from then until the 530s successive patriarchs there either explicitly repudiated Chalcedon or else were willing to pass it over in silence, as neither accepted nor rejected (although they always rejected its definition as heterodox), in accordance with various imperially-mandated formulae,, such as the Emperpr Zeno's "Henoticon" (which was the standard of orthodoxy in the East from 476 to 518, although Rome [and Jerusalem] rejected it). Only in the reign of Justinian was an Orthodox line of patriarchs created in opposition to the anti-Chalcedonian, when in 536 the Emperor removed Patriarch Theodosius II -- whom the anti-Chalcedonians continued to reciognize as patriarch until his death in 567. Only when Theodosius II died, however, did the imperial authorities attempt to impose a Chalcedonian patriarch upon the Alexandrians, and successive Chalcedonian patriarchs were rejected unanimously by the Egyptian episcopate and by most of the monasteries, in favor of Theodosius II's successors. Likewise, the Armenian Church (none of whose bishops has been present at Chalcedon) rejected that council in both 506 and 552.<BR/><BR/>It is true that the Patriarchate of Antioch of the anti-Chalcedonian "Syriac Orthodox Church" originated in the 550s as a "counter hierarchy" to the Orthodox patriarchate, its bishops consecrated by the indefatigable anti-Chalcedonian evangelist and bishop Jacob Baradeus, but the case of the Copts (and the Ethiopians) is a more difficult one for "branch theorists" who wish to contend that no council can be considered ecumenical unless the "Church-as-a-whole" has "received" it. Or, as I sometimes put it in other contexts, "if Chalcedon, why not Florence" and "if not Florence, then why Chalcedon?"William Tighehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16634494183165592707noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18902745.post-59712609297551784172008-07-16T00:53:00.000-04:002008-07-16T00:53:00.000-04:00The Melkites in Alexandria remained in communion w...The Melkites in Alexandria remained in communion with the Ecumenical Patriarch (the Metropolitan) of Constantinople in 451. The Orthodox Patriarch of Alexandria claims to be the genuine successor of of St. Mark, Apostle and Evangelist.<BR/><BR/>I respect the Copts, and understand that linguistic confusion caused their isolation. However, it is also worth noting that their ancestors made less than a full effort to understand what the Council of Chalcedon had actually said, and more or less went off in a huff.<BR/><BR/>Nonetheless, to be more accurate I have changed the wording to "Universal" rather than "whole." The ratification of Patriarchs and Archbishops representing the Church in each place was the standard. I do not wish to offend Copts, especially in light of their endurance of persecution from Muslims.Fr. Robert Harthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05892141425033196616noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18902745.post-90945485472655916202008-07-15T22:28:00.000-04:002008-07-15T22:28:00.000-04:00First of all, it is self-evident that councils are...<B>First of all, it is self-evident that councils are not infallible unless ratified by the whole Church, something rendered impossible after Nicea II due to the Great Schism between the two "One True Churches."</B><BR/><BR/>How can you write this with a straight face when you earlier acknowledge the existence of the non-Chalcedonian churches?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18902745.post-80869198605411603532008-07-15T21:09:00.000-04:002008-07-15T21:09:00.000-04:00You're on a roll, Father Hart.You're on a roll, Father Hart.Rev. Dr. Hasserthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14350737386756722887noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18902745.post-85822389269746595722008-07-15T20:30:00.000-04:002008-07-15T20:30:00.000-04:00Thanks for the bit about "sola Scriptura" in the w...Thanks for the bit about "sola Scriptura" in the writings of St Thomas Aquinas. There it is, we have to deal with the fact that this concept, right or worng, did not originate in the feverish brains of schismatic Reformers in Wittenburg,<BR/>Zurich and Geneva.<BR/><BR/>The problem for this formula (which Aquinas avoided deftly) is that it is an incomplete sentence: "Scriptura" is "sola" for what purpose, in what sense?<BR/>This is commonly overlooked both by the critics and by the defenders of the concept. But it has different meanings for Baptists, for the Reformed, slightly different for Lutherans. For us, it means simply that Scripture contains all things necessary to salvation. There is indeed a sense in which even the RC's maintain Scriptura sola, as they stoutly prohibit liturgical readings from non-canonical writings. "Scriptura sola" for the Eucharistic lectionary!<BR/><BR/>As far as the Thomistic use of Scripura sola, Hans Kung gives a very long list of citations of "Fide sola" from pre-Reformation theologians. <BR/><BR/>So those who quickly, thoughtlessly and ignorantly dismiss the magisterial Reformers are in real danger of cutting themselves off from the great central tradition of Christian theology. The Reformers, to be sure, made plenty of mistakes, particularly in the area of sacramental theology. But they were frequently right about some important matters, such as Justification, Mariology, Purgatory, and Indulgences.<BR/>LKWAnonymousnoreply@blogger.com