Wednesday, September 10, 2008

An Inconvenient Conciliar Truth - Part 08

An Inconvenient Conciliar Truth - Part 08

Some folks seem to find relying on councils a comfort. For these folks, there are some inconvenient facts that they must face. This post is the eighth in what has become a multi-part series.

Quinisext Ecumenical Council (691) - Council's Ecumenical Status Disputed

The Quinisext Ecumenical Council is recognized by those of Eastern Orthodoxy as being an ecumenical council - connected as part of the 5th and 6th councils, which themselves did not provide canons. It was allegedly endorsed by popes Adrian I, Gregory II, and Innocent III.

Nevertheless, the Catholic Encyclopedia reports:

In fact, the West never recognized the 102 disciplinary canons of this council, in large measure reaffirmations of earlier canons. Most of the new canons exhibit an inimical attitude towards Churches not in disciplinary accord with Constantinople, especially the Western Churches.


Generally, therefore, those who adhere to Catholicism will refer to this council as the council of Trullo or the Trullian Council.

-TurretinFan

6 comments:

orthodox said...

Do you expect us to be shocked that east and west have different disciplinary canons? Amazing.

Turretinfan said...

No, what is "shocking" is that there is not universal agreement on the ecumenical status of the canons of the council.

I don't expect you personally to be shocked, because you don't have a particularly high view of Rome (although, obviously, this council pre-dates the "Great Schism").

-TurretinFan

orthodox said...

"ecumenical" is merely a word. Disciplinary canons are non-dogmatic in any case, so whether one attaches a particular word to them is of no significance.

As you should know, some churches in communion with Rome follow the canons of Trullo. Rome doesn't mind, and why should it?

Turretinfan said...

O wrote: "'ecumenical' is merely a word."

That's one of the worst rebuttals I've seen. Words have meaning, and "ecumenical" is one such word.

O wrote: "Disciplinary canons are non-dogmatic in any case, so whether one attaches a particular word to them is of no significance."

Again, not true. Disciplinary canons may be "non-dogmatic," but that does not mean that whether they are ecumenical or not is of no significance.

O wrote: "As you should know, some churches in communion with Rome follow the canons of Trullo. Rome doesn't mind, and why should it?"

Rome probably doesn't mind if they use Robert's Rules of Order at their meetings, and why would Rome?

I'm not suggesting Rome should care about either case. If you thought that was the point, you missed it.

-TurretinFan

Jnorm888 said...

True, Disciplinary canons are non-dogmatic.





JNORM888

Turretinfan said...

"True, Disciplinary canons are non-dogmatic." By definition ... if they were "dogmatic canons" they wouldn't be "disciplinary canons." And - of course - that's not the point.

The disciplinary canons of the first council of Jerusalem were nevertheless intended to be binding throughout the church.

-TurretinFan