/christian/ - Christian Discussion and Fellowship

The pope is God on earth so he doesn't have to follow any rules

>>712127

>The pope is God on earth so he doesn't have to follow any rules

Well, you can certainly ignore the Pope when it comes to certain secular technical matters he is unfamiliar with. Whereas you can't really do that with God and the laws of physics locally. I'm going to say between that and other things that have recently come up, that's a bit much unless its a matter ex catherda.

Either way, given this is Early Church tier stuff, this doesn't really work out very well for the other guys to the left of the Pope either…

>>712143

Well, maybe more like "Unified Church"-tier, post Constantine "early church" might be pushing it.

>>712203

So if I were living in the USSR I would be obliged to practice atheism because the government says so?

I've been going through a crisis of faith lately, I'm not sure what to believe anymore. I've never seen this seriously addressed by anyone other than extreme sedes like the dimonds, and I'm not sure that's a path I should go down as it's a completely dead end, and most sedes don't come off as Christian at all but neurotic and moody. It's really stressing me out because of how confusing the situation is, I'm tempted to just become Orthodox but that leads to other problems.. Someone pray for me

>Disciplinary canons can be changed by future councils or Pontiffs. For example Canon XX of the Council of Nicea forbids kneeling on Sundays and on Pentecost. Kneeling has been part of the Latin Church's liturgies for centuries.

>However, your friend has a major problem in that what he is quoting to you is not from the 3rd Council of Constantinople. No such canon is to be found from that Council.

>What he is quoting is from what is referred to as the "Apostolic Canons" or the "Canon of the Apostles" (canon 64). It was a pseudepigraphic work. Various ancient figures in the Church were suspicious of it and it never received wide acceptance outside of being a window into a wing of early Christian thought.

>Some of the canons from this work have been adopted by other Councils and Pontiffs but not all. For example:

>Canon 66 condemns fasting on a Sunday with the penalty being clergy deposed and laity excommunicated.

>Canons 46 & 47 appear to claim baptism of heretics to be invalid, however the Latin Church has never claimed this and even proclaimed otherwise.

>Pope John Paul II did not violate a canon from the 3rd Council of Constantinople. The Church is free to change its disciplinary canons and therefore cannot bind a future Pope or Council.

https://forums.catholic.com/t/did-john-paul-2-go-against-third-council-of-constantinople-by-praying-with-non-catholic-faiths/331962

tl; dr: nobody violated the 3rd Council of Constantinople since that isn't in those canons, which is nice for the Christians involved (Roman Catholic Church, Greek Orthodox Church, Russian Orthodox Church, World Council of Churches, World YWCA , World Alliance of YMCA's, Friends World Committee for Consultation, Mennonite World Conference, Reformed Ecumenical Synod, Baptist World Alliance, Christian Church, World Alliance of Reformed Churches, Lutheran World Federation, Anglican Communion, Old Catholic Church of Utrecht, Assyrian Church of the East).

>>712225

If you were in real life you would be obligated to make good arguments instead of posts like these because we would throw you out for making joke arguments.

>B-but

No, I won't reply to your post any further.

>>712124

To quote something I said somewhere else:

>It is up to our bishops to determine what to make of ancient canons. A case can certainly be made that the situation today is very different from the situation our forefathers had to deal with. Most of the heretical sects out there are centuries old, and their heresies, while obviously grave, aren't as terrifyingly bad as those the Fathers had to deal with (Gnosticism, etc). Many Orthodox have Catholic and Protestant relatives as well, at least in the West. And Constantinople and Rome have mutually acknowledged their status as sister churches, which persists even where there is heresy. So it's understandable that many bishops wouldn't make such a strict application of the canons against praying with heretics, and would rather minimize it to not receiving communion from them or agreeing to their heresies.

>>712248

Let me add that the canon can still be applied to the letter, and I have met a couple of priests who insisted on not letting their parishioners enter Catholic churches for instance.

>>712225

Any law which would require you to break God's law is illegitimate, and therefore is not binding. Hence the early Christians refusing to burn incense before tge Roman gods.

>>712124

Relax, it was just a prank. It is well documented that the Assisi Prayer Meeting was just for laughs.

>>712235

>It's really stressing me out because of how confusing the situation is

Take it easy. Just go visit the Churches around you and observe. Maybe you will find a place where you will be able to say Did not my heart burn within me? (Luke 24:32) Have trust in God that he will direct you.

>>712239

>nobody violated the 3rd Council of Constantinople since that isn't in those canons,

In the Orthodox Church this council counts as Ecumenical and its canons are binding.

> which is nice for the Christians involved

No, this isn't nice for the Orthodox Christians involved. Fortunately, at present in the Orthodox Church disorders like this do not happen as often as they have happened in the past.

>>712248

>Many Orthodox have Catholic and Protestant relatives as well

Do not think that I have come to bring peace to the earth. I have not come to bring peace, but a sword. For I have come to set a man against his father, and a daughter against her mother, and a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law. And a person’s enemies will be those of his own household. (Matthew 10:34)

>Constantinople and Rome have mutually acknowledged their status as sister churches

Rome has acknowledged the Orthodox Church as a sister Church. In the Orthodox Church, however, the bishop of Constantinople has no authority do make the same decision so this remains his personal opinion.

>So it's understandable that many bishops wouldn't make such a strict application of the canons against praying with heretics

Such bishops are very few. Moreover, they don't like to announce their actions publicly because they know the reaction that will follow. This is especially true for the bishops that are not of the Patriarchate of Constantinople.

>>712127

I hope you are a troll

>>712124

He certainly sold out one way or another.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YSy6ENVAJlY

>>712260

Why are you replying to me if you haven't read my post?

>What he is quoting is from what is referred to as the "Apostolic Canons" or the "Canon of the Apostles" (canon 64). It was a pseudepigraphic work. Various ancient figures in the Church were suspicious of it and it never received wide acceptance outside of being a window into a wing of early Christian thought.

OP's quote isn't in the canons of the 3rd Council of Constantinople. In fact, that council failed to promulgate any canons.

>>712279

>In fact, that council failed to promulgate any canons

The council didn't fail to promulgate canons. It continued at Trullo and issued 102 canons. The following is the beginning of canon 2:

"It has also seemed good to this holy Council, that the eighty-five canons, received and ratified by the holy and blessed Fathers before us, and also handed down to us in the name of the holy and glorious Apostles should from this time forth remain firm and unshaken for the cure of souls and the healing of disorders. And in these canons we are bidden to receive the Constitutions of the Holy Apostles [written] by Clement. But formerly through the agency of those who erred from the faith certain adulterous matter was introduced, clean contrary to piety, for the polluting of the Church, which obscures the elegance and beauty of the divine decrees in their present form. We therefore reject these Constitutions so as the better to make sure of the edification and security of the most Christian flock; by no means admitting the offspring of heretical error, and cleaving to the pure and perfect doctrine of the Apostles."

>>712284

Notice also that the canon doesn't say the canons are of the Apostles. It says the canons are "in the name" of the Apostles and also that they contain "the perfect doctrine" of the Apostles.

>>712284

So the Orthodox count the Trullan Council as part of the Sixth Ecumenical Council?

>>712293

The Trullan Council considered itself Ecumenical and supplement of the 5th and the 6th Ecumenical council. In most modern canonical books the canons of the Trullan Council are listed as canons of the 6th Ecumenical council.

>>712124

its a canon, not a anathema, its upto the church to apply it, or not in whatever way.

>>712301

By the Orthodox?

>>712313

Yes.

>>712260

>Do not think that I have come to bring peace to the earth. I have not come to bring peace, but a sword. For I have come to set a man against his father, and a daughter against her mother, and a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law. And a person’s enemies will be those of his own household. (Matthew 10:34)

Tell that to the bishops, not to me.

>Rome has acknowledged the Orthodox Church as a sister Church. In the Orthodox Church, however, the bishop of Constantinople has no authority do make the same decision so this remains his personal opinion.

Rome has only acknowledged Constantinople as its sister church. And the patriarch of Constantinople has no authority to say where the church of Constantinople stands? What kind of kooky ecclesiology is that?

>Such bishops are very few. Moreover, they don't like to announce their actions publicly because they know the reaction that will follow. This is especially true for the bishops that are not of the Patriarchate of Constantinople.

Literally haven't met a single priest or bishop who doesn't allow his flock to go to a Mass or a Protestant service. Incidentally, the only "clergymen" I hear who make a strict application of the "no praying with heretics" rule are True Orthodox schismatics.

>>712313

Yes. Council in Trullo is considered an extension of the 5th and 6th ecumenical councils.

>>712319

>Council in Trullo is considered an extension of the 5th and 6th ecumenical councils.

If it were considered simply a supplement only to the Sixth Ecumenical Council, I could perhaps understand referring to it's canons as canons of the Third Council of Constantinople, as if the two were a single event. But as it is? Why not call it the Quinisext Council or the Trullan Council (or whatever else)?

>>712325

It's also called the Quinisext Council, you know.

>>712328

Yes. You think I'm creative enough to come up with such a word? Why not call it specifically that instead of conflating it with a prior council?

>>712319

>Rome has only acknowledged Constantinople as its sister church.

Are you sure? Rome pleases itself to think that Constantinople=Orthodox Church.

>And the patriarch of Constantinople has no authority to say where the church of Constantinople stands?

Yes. The Church of Constantinople doesn't belong to the Patriarch. Only a council (for example the Holy Synod of the Church of Constantinople) can make such decisions.

Moreover, I am unaware of any Patriarch of Constantinople who would say the Roman Catholics are a sister-church. As far as I know the only Orthodox bishop who has said such thing officially is Metropolitan Jeremias (Calligiorgis) of Switzerland (Patriarchate of Constantinople). There are also some "diplomatic" documents using the term "sister-church" but such documents are not binding.

>>712325

The council is Quinisext or Trullan, not Third of Constantinople. The canons, however, often are regarded as canons of the 6th ecumenical council.

>>712329

What do you mean? It's called the Council in Trullo, or the Quinisext Council. Its canons are considered to be those of the 5th and 6th ecumenical councils. What is the confusion here?

>>712330

The Church of Constantinople does belong to the Ecumenical Patriarch. He ultimately submits to the synod but he doesn't need a synod to express a part of his church's tradition. If his brother bishops do not correct him, his word remains authoritative.

>As far as I know the only Orthodox bishop who has said such thing officially is Metropolitan Jeremias (Calligiorgis) of Switzerland (Patriarchate of Constantinople)

EP Athenagoras and every EP after him has used the terminology of "sister churches".

>Are you sure? Rome pleases itself to think that Constantinople=Orthodox Church.

The Vatican released a document in 2000 specifically pointing out that the terminology of "sister churches" only applies to Rome and Constantinople.

>>712330

>As far as I know

Apparently I was wrong.

It seems the first one using the term "sister-church" about the Roman Catholic Church was the notorious Patriarch Athenagoras in 1962. Bartholomew also has used this term in 1990 (at that time he was only a Metropolitan of Chalcedon).