No Pope = No Ecumenical Council

smad0142 · #1 Feb 18, '12, 2:42 pm

Someone once told me that one of the early Ecumenical Councils contains a statement that there can not be a Council without the Bishop of Rome. Can anyone provide a quote or tell me which Council? Thanks!

RyanBlack · #2 Feb 18, '12, 2:50 pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by smad0142

Someone once told me that one of the early Ecumenical Councils contains a statement that there can not be a Council without the Bishop of Rome. Can anyone provide a quote or tell me which Council? Thanks!

That's interesting. Of the first seven Ecumenical Councils, the Bishop of Rome was present at a grand total of zero.

Cavaradossi · #3 Feb 18, '12, 2:54 pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by RyanBlack

That's interesting. Of the first seven Ecumenical Councils, the Bishop of Rome was present at a grand total of zero.

Sort of, with the exception that Pope Vigilius was physically present at the Fifth.

Nine_Two · #4 Feb 18, '12, 2:56 pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by smad0142

Someone once told me that one of the early Ecumenical Councils contains a statement that there can not be a Council without the Bishop of Rome. Can anyone provide a quote or tell me which Council? Thanks!

No, that only seems to have appled to the last 15 Ecumenical Councils of the Western Church.

RyanBlack · #5 Feb 18, '12, 3:04 pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cavaradossi

Sort of, with the exception that Pope Vigilius was physically present at the Fifth.

He was in Constantinople at the time of the Council, but did not attend. In fact, he refused to do so.

The_Scott · #6 Feb 18, '12, 3:18 pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by RyanBlack

That's interesting. Of the first seven Ecumenical Councils, the Bishop of Rome was present at a grand total of zero.

Legates were sent, however. So in all intents and purposes, the Bishop of Rome was present.

Trebor135 · #7 Feb 18, '12, 3:37 pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by The_Scott

Legates were sent, however. So in all intents and purposes, the Bishop of Rome was present.

To all the seven councils apart from the fifth?

I'd also like to hear in what manner Catholics reconcile the Vigilius situation with the modern-day papacy...

RyanBlack · #8 Feb 18, '12, 3:48 pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by The_Scott

Legates were sent, however. So in all intents and purposes, the Bishop of Rome was present.

Yes, legates were present (although there were none at the Second Ecumenical Council), but I don't agree that it equates with "in all intents and purposes, the Bishop of Rome was present." The First Seven Ecumenical Councils were largely Eastern affairs, convened by Emperors, presided over by Eastern bishops (not papal legates, except at the Second Council of Nicea, where the papal legates presided shared with the Patriarch of Constantinople in presiding over the Council), and attended mainly be Eastern bishops. I just see no way to use the example of the First Seven Ecumenical Councils to prop up ultra-montane understandings of the papacy, which is what these discussion so often seem to be aimed at doing. On the other hand, I can agree with the assertion the Seven Ecumenical Councils would not be ecumenical apart from eventual acceptance by the See of Rome (after all, the status of the Councils as ecumenical is based on their acceptance by the entire Church).

The_Scott · #9 Feb 18, '12, 3:50 pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by Trebor135

To all the seven councils apart from the fifth?

I'd also like to hear in what manner Catholics reconcile the Vigilius situation with the modern-day papacy...

I'm afraid I can't answer your question fully at the moment. I need to get this thesis paper done (the dreaded due date is coming up in a week!) Either way, hopefully someone can actually answer your question:

Regarding Vigilius and the Second Council of Constantiople, you may like to go to the Old Catholic Encyclopedia:

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/04308b.htm

and here's the entry for Pope Vigilius:

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/15427b.htm

Sorry to just dump a couple links and leave, instead of actually answering the question.

Good luck finding what you're looking for!

smad0142 · #10 Feb 18, '12, 4:00 pm

Just to clarify I am not trying to push an argument, I just want to see whatever this person was referencing.

smad0142 · #11 Feb 18, '12, 4:03 pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by Trebor135

To all the seven councils apart from the fifth?

I'd also like to hear in what manner Catholics reconcile the Vigilius situation with the modern-day papacy...

Mind summarizing the situation for me? Thanks!

Paul theApostle · #12 Feb 18, '12, 4:53 pm

http://www.rtforum.org/lt/lt29.html

Ignatios · #13 Feb 18, '12, 4:55 pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by The_Scott

Legates were sent, however. So in all intents and purposes, the Bishop of Rome was present.

Not the 2nd nor the 5th.

ByzCathCantor · #14 Feb 18, '12, 4:57 pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by Trebor135

To all the seven councils apart from the fifth?

I'd also like to hear in what manner Catholics reconcile the Vigilius situation with the modern-day papacy...

Quote:

Originally Posted by smad0142

Mind summarizing the situation for me? Thanks!

Yes, it would be helpful to have an appreciation of your understanding of the "Vigilius situation", as you have put it. We might assume from your request as written that you believe there is something problematic in relation to the role of the papacy, but specifics would likely facilitate a more product exchange on the subject. Thanks!

Trebor135 · #15 Feb 19, '12, 12:02 am

Quote:

Originally Posted by ByzCathCantor

Yes, it would be helpful to have an appreciation of your understanding of the "Vigilius situation", as you have put it. We might assume from your request as written that you believe there is something problematic in relation to the role of the papacy, but specifics would likely facilitate a more product exchange on the subject. Thanks!

Haha, my original statement was indeed vague. I'll cite this comment by an Eastern Orthodox in the midst of arguing why the sixth ecumenical council ostensibly disproves Catholic doctrine about the papacy:

Quote:

[We must not] ignore the Fifth council and what it did. First the Fifth council stated that no one bishop, because no one apostle, required the help of others for the execution of their work, the only way a common faith could be professed was that if they came together to decide such matters. They said this over against Pope Vigilius who claimed to lay down an “irreformable” judgment in his Judicatum, which the council overturned and excommunicated the pope. They did so stating quite clearly that while they excommunicated Vigilius, they were still in communion with the See of Rome.

(I would recommend reading the surrounding discussion which gave rise to this snippet.)