Doesn't this also refute a few other RCC claims; Vatican 1 saying that Popes cannot be in error on matters of faith and morals and must be submitted to; and that it is a Pope's agreeance to and ratification of a council that makes it ecumenical? How can you have a Pope ratifying a council on a canonical and theological matter thereby making it both ecumenical by their standards but also a declaration on FAITH, then have later Popes reverse it, support a council that was anathematized and the RCC hierarchy slowly remove knowledge of the original council? They refute themselves.
I think their counter-argument is around the somewhat contested nature of Pope john VIII ratifying the Council or not. The evidence of John VIII's letters clearly supports that he was on the side of the Greeks, but apparently finding a signature accepting the Council [which is required for a Council to be Ecumenical] has been a problem, I have heard. But I agree with you. This entire segment of history around the 8th Council is fascinating and, in my opinion, leans in our [Orthodox] favor. This whole drama of the 8th Council really is something of a microcosm of the entire debate between Orthodox Catholics and Roman Catholics.
@@iliya3110 supposedly it’s listed as an ecumenical in the west for like 200 years after the council and then they switch. But I haven’t found direct evidence yet (just haven’t looked much).
What we have never had is a Big Meeting where St Photius demolishes the Frankish theologians, after which the Spanish, Portuguese and English delegates go home and persuade their fellow bishops to drop the Filioque. The first proper Big Meeting was Ferrara-Florence where both parties had competent representation.
The council lasts about 4 months, 23 Days 3:26 Called by The Emperor, supported by The Pope, ‘12-103 Bishops Reaffirmed The Second Council 879-880 St Photios 383 Bishops The 1st 7 ecumenical Councils are Recognized Authority in Eastern Orthodox and Catholic Christianity
Now is the year 2024 and 8th council is still NOT on a level of Ecumenical Council since 9th one did not happen and only 9th council can elevate 8th one to the level of "Ecumenical". Those who will say that 9th one was so called "pan-Orthodox" one, keep in mind that what is called "pan" was everything but Pan since less than 50% of the worldwide Orthodoxy was represented there and decisions of that council are NOT widely accepted. Wishes of organizer of that council are not sufficient to make it legitimate 9th council. So, at this point in time, Eastern Orthodox Church is the Church of SEVEN Ecumenical Councils and one is pending that designation.
@@johnnyd2383 If the 9th is needed to elevate the 8th to Ecumenical, why does the 7th, 6th, 5th, etc, not need a later council to elevate those? Is it that these councils (8th/9th) do not themselves need to be Ecumenical to have dogmatic/binding authority or whatever else is necessary to make the prior council Ecumenical? Thanks for your time.
@@groyper1177 Principle is the same from the beginning. Next Council would have elevated previous one and continued with its agenda. 7th was elevated by the 8th, but to elevate 8th, 9th is needed and that one did not happen yet. So the 7th was the last Ecumenical one, while 8th is pending elevation. 8th one is not disputed... everyone is OK with it but it can't be called Ecumenical as it needs 9th one to proclaim it Ecumenical.
Quick question - Why is the 8th Ecumenical Council's ecumenicity a matter of dispute among us Orthodox? Why don't we universally, without variance, accept it as the 8th Council? Seems to have all the markers of an Ecumenical Council, canonically speaking.
I believe it is at least acknowledged as universally binding. The reason why I think there's dispute about calling it "Ecumenical" is because it relates to canon law that states the See of Rome, amongst all the other Patriarchs, has to sign the council. And he did sign this one, but I guess that was lost to time, since a later Pope redacted the signature.
@Mr Magoo's Junkmail The problem with that is, I think Chalcedon lists the signature of the Pope as a requirement for an Ecumenical title. And, the only way to negate that, would be to depose the Pope in an Ecumenical Council, and such a thing could only be forced on a heretical Pope if 1.An Emperor calls up an Ecumenical Council. The point is, it's much more complicated than universally agreeing as Orthodox Christian Patriarchs. The Patriarch of Rome has never been deposed in the Church, unlike the Coptic Heretics. So, the Pope is a heretic, but he is still a Patriarch. Otherwise, we would have already established an Orthodox Patriarch of Rome. Why haven't we? Because of what I just mentioned. He was never deposed!
@Mr Magoo's Junkmail Additionally, the Roman "Catholic" church doesn't have real Ecumenical Councils after number 7, because they DON'T HAVE the signatures of the patriarchates. They invented their own nonsense. Furthermore, some modern Popes have even said weird sketchy stuff, which seems to say that the Roman "Ecumenical" Councils are simply for the West. Hence, Eastern Papists only have 7 Ecumenical Councils, I kid you not. It's super bizarre.
@Mr Magoo's Junkmail Dude, you've made up your own world and weird conclusions. A council doesn't need to be called Ecumenical to be universally binding and dogmatic. Your idea on how schism, heresy, and ecclesiology work are COMPLETELY incorrect and the Orthodox Church doesn't work your way. We have accepted countless papist priests by chrismation alone, no re-ordination, and Nestorian priests with only a denial of their previous faith, the Nestorians didn't even need a new chrismation. Your worldview is not how the Russian Orthodox synods and the rest of the Church have worked for centuries. The Roman Catholic Church has apostolic succession, otherwise we would re-ordain priests instead of Chrismation alone. And even Nestorians have the rite of ordination, and in their case they weren't even received by Chrismation but by negation of heresy alone. Read about the Nestorians in the caucus, and the reception of roman priests to Orthodoxy. The Roman Pope was never deposed in am Ecumenical Council. WE HAVE CHURCHES IN ITALY AND EVEN A METROPOLITAN Bishop.
@Mr Magoo's Junkmail And your rant about not needing the See of Peter is literally a useless rant. I'm talking Patriarchal ratification according to the ecclesiastic laws instituted in the Council of Chalcedon, which is Ecumenical. None of my concerns lie in the "Papacy needed" propaganda of the papists. You have no idea what you're talking about.
An Ecumenical Council was always called by an Emperor, and determined later council consensus. You don't have that for the 8th and 9th. Greeks don't like to hear it, but it's reality.
@thane816 I was corrected on another thread. The so-called 8th and Ninth where called by emperors. Those two Councils taught nothing new. The Councils held in the time of st. Photios and the Palamite Councils reiterated the praxis and ethos of the Orthodox Church, and are considered to have authority of Ecumenical Councils without being so named. Tnx for the opportunity to correct my earlier post!
@@sifu9683 I know about the 8th council, but still have to read the Palamite Councils. Your post has inspired me to read through it (but first I want to read History of the Franks).
9th one was not legit council as les than 50% of the worldwide Orthodoxy was represented plus not all accepted the Horos of that council.. so it also did not have sufficient authority to exalt 8th one to the level of "Ecumenical". Hence we have only 7 Ecumenical Councils so far and 8th one pending approval and is such represented in Typikons in the Orthodox Churches. You are right about Greeks and they keep saying Orthodoxy has 9 councils which is simply not true.
The 7th Council implies the 8th and the 9th Council(s) solidify the previous councils' methodological, epistemological, and existential framework.
Doesn't this also refute a few other RCC claims; Vatican 1 saying that Popes cannot be in error on matters of faith and morals and must be submitted to; and that it is a Pope's agreeance to and ratification of a council that makes it ecumenical?
How can you have a Pope ratifying a council on a canonical and theological matter thereby making it both ecumenical by their standards but also a declaration on FAITH, then have later Popes reverse it, support a council that was anathematized and the RCC hierarchy slowly remove knowledge of the original council? They refute themselves.
Yes. I see this as being one of the biggest problems for the RCC. But I rarely see it brought up or addressed. Very odd.
I think their counter-argument is around the somewhat contested nature of Pope john VIII ratifying the Council or not. The evidence of John VIII's letters clearly supports that he was on the side of the Greeks, but apparently finding a signature accepting the Council [which is required for a Council to be Ecumenical] has been a problem, I have heard. But I agree with you. This entire segment of history around the 8th Council is fascinating and, in my opinion, leans in our [Orthodox] favor. This whole drama of the 8th Council really is something of a microcosm of the entire debate between Orthodox Catholics and Roman Catholics.
@@iliya3110 supposedly it’s listed as an ecumenical in the west for like 200 years after the council and then they switch. But I haven’t found direct evidence yet (just haven’t looked much).
What we have never had is a Big Meeting where St Photius demolishes the Frankish theologians, after which the Spanish, Portuguese and English delegates go home and persuade their fellow bishops to drop the Filioque. The first proper Big Meeting was Ferrara-Florence where both parties had competent representation.
The council lasts about 4 months, 23
Days
3:26 Called by The Emperor, supported by The Pope, ‘12-103 Bishops
Reaffirmed The Second Council
879-880
St Photios
383 Bishops
The 1st 7 ecumenical Councils are Recognized Authority in Eastern Orthodox and Catholic Christianity
Now is the year 2024 and 8th council is still NOT on a level of Ecumenical Council since 9th one did not happen and only 9th council can elevate 8th one to the level of "Ecumenical". Those who will say that 9th one was so called "pan-Orthodox" one, keep in mind that what is called "pan" was everything but Pan since less than 50% of the worldwide Orthodoxy was represented there and decisions of that council are NOT widely accepted. Wishes of organizer of that council are not sufficient to make it legitimate 9th council. So, at this point in time, Eastern Orthodox Church is the Church of SEVEN Ecumenical Councils and one is pending that designation.
I asked my Orthodox priest about this in my catechumen classes. He said the church only recognizes 7.
Your priest is correct. If interested I have placed a small comment here about it.
@@johnnyd2383 If the 9th is needed to elevate the 8th to Ecumenical, why does the 7th, 6th, 5th, etc, not need a later council to elevate those? Is it that these councils (8th/9th) do not themselves need to be Ecumenical to have dogmatic/binding authority or whatever else is necessary to make the prior council Ecumenical? Thanks for your time.
@@groyper1177 Principle is the same from the beginning. Next Council would have elevated previous one and continued with its agenda. 7th was elevated by the 8th, but to elevate 8th, 9th is needed and that one did not happen yet. So the 7th was the last Ecumenical one, while 8th is pending elevation. 8th one is not disputed... everyone is OK with it but it can't be called Ecumenical as it needs 9th one to proclaim it Ecumenical.
♡
Quick question - Why is the 8th Ecumenical Council's ecumenicity a matter of dispute among us Orthodox? Why don't we universally, without variance, accept it as the 8th Council? Seems to have all the markers of an Ecumenical Council, canonically speaking.
I believe it is at least acknowledged as universally binding. The reason why I think there's dispute about calling it "Ecumenical" is because it relates to canon law that states the See of Rome, amongst all the other Patriarchs, has to sign the council. And he did sign this one, but I guess that was lost to time, since a later Pope redacted the signature.
@Mr Magoo's Junkmail The problem with that is, I think Chalcedon lists the signature of the Pope as a requirement for an Ecumenical title. And, the only way to negate that, would be to depose the Pope in an Ecumenical Council, and such a thing could only be forced on a heretical Pope if 1.An Emperor calls up an Ecumenical Council.
The point is, it's much more complicated than universally agreeing as Orthodox Christian Patriarchs.
The Patriarch of Rome has never been deposed in the Church, unlike the Coptic Heretics. So, the Pope is a heretic, but he is still a Patriarch. Otherwise, we would have already established an Orthodox Patriarch of Rome. Why haven't we? Because of what I just mentioned. He was never deposed!
@Mr Magoo's Junkmail Additionally, the Roman "Catholic" church doesn't have real Ecumenical Councils after number 7, because they DON'T HAVE the signatures of the patriarchates. They invented their own nonsense. Furthermore, some modern Popes have even said weird sketchy stuff, which seems to say that the Roman "Ecumenical" Councils are simply for the West. Hence, Eastern Papists only have 7 Ecumenical Councils, I kid you not. It's super bizarre.
@Mr Magoo's Junkmail Dude, you've made up your own world and weird conclusions. A council doesn't need to be called Ecumenical to be universally binding and dogmatic. Your idea on how schism, heresy, and ecclesiology work are COMPLETELY incorrect and the Orthodox Church doesn't work your way. We have accepted countless papist priests by chrismation alone, no re-ordination, and Nestorian priests with only a denial of their previous faith, the Nestorians didn't even need a new chrismation. Your worldview is not how the Russian Orthodox synods and the rest of the Church have worked for centuries. The Roman Catholic Church has apostolic succession, otherwise we would re-ordain priests instead of Chrismation alone. And even Nestorians have the rite of ordination, and in their case they weren't even received by Chrismation but by negation of heresy alone. Read about the Nestorians in the caucus, and the reception of roman priests to Orthodoxy. The Roman Pope was never deposed in am Ecumenical Council. WE HAVE CHURCHES IN ITALY AND EVEN A METROPOLITAN Bishop.
@Mr Magoo's Junkmail And your rant about not needing the See of Peter is literally a useless rant. I'm talking Patriarchal ratification according to the ecclesiastic laws instituted in the Council of Chalcedon, which is Ecumenical. None of my concerns lie in the "Papacy needed" propaganda of the papists. You have no idea what you're talking about.
An Ecumenical Council was always called by an Emperor, and determined later council consensus. You don't have that for the 8th and 9th. Greeks don't like to hear it, but it's reality.
Emperors existed in Constantinople until 1453. So I don't understand what you mean
@thane816 I was corrected on another thread. The so-called 8th and Ninth where called by emperors. Those two Councils taught nothing new. The Councils held in the time of st. Photios and the Palamite Councils reiterated the praxis and ethos of the Orthodox Church, and are considered to have authority of Ecumenical Councils without being so named. Tnx for the opportunity to correct my earlier post!
@@sifu9683 I know about the 8th council, but still have to read the Palamite Councils. Your post has inspired me to read through it (but first I want to read History of the Franks).
9th one was not legit council as les than 50% of the worldwide Orthodoxy was represented plus not all accepted the Horos of that council.. so it also did not have sufficient authority to exalt 8th one to the level of "Ecumenical". Hence we have only 7 Ecumenical Councils so far and 8th one pending approval and is such represented in Typikons in the Orthodox Churches. You are right about Greeks and they keep saying Orthodoxy has 9 councils which is simply not true.
@johnnyd2383 its by concensus for sure. Tnx for the info!
Just taking notes…St Gregory, oration 31.
does anyone know why Pope John VIII isn’t considered a martyr?
great video