“If any ecclesiastic or layman shall go into the synagogue of the Jews or the meeting-houses of the heretics to join in prayer with them, let them be deposed and deprived of communion. If any bishop or priest or deacon shall join in prayer with heretics, let him be suspended from communion.” (3rd Council of Constantinople in AD 680)
How did they get out of this one?
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…
Well, maybe more like "Unified Church"-tier, post Constantine "early church" might be pushing it.
The Church, being a legitimate authority (so like governments, parents, etc.), can make and change laws concerning its subjects.
However, such laws, stemming from the authority of the lawgiver, aren't unchangeable - for example, a country can change its laws if they stop being useful. And yet, legitimate authority comes from God (see Romans 13 - "The authorities that exist have been established by God. Consequently, whoever rebels against the authority is rebelling against what God has instituted, and those who do so will bring judgment on themselves."), and so, even though such laws are human and changeable, they are still binding for the authority' subjects. For example, the government's authority comes from God, and so the law given by it is binding and breaking it is a sin, even though human country's law is changeable and human. And just as other legitimate authorities can use their authority to make and change laws, so does Church.
So even though the purpose of the Church is to safeguard the unchangeable Divine doctrine and laws, it can also, as a legitimate authority, additionally create a lower, human law binding its members - and being merely human law, it can be changed by competent authorities.
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
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).
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.
No, I won't reply to your post any further.
To quote something I said somewhere else:
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.
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.
Relax, it was just a prank. It is well documented that the Assisi Prayer Meeting was just for laughs.
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.
In the Orthodox Church this council counts as Ecumenical and its canons are binding.
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.
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)
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.
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.
I hope you are a troll
He certainly sold out one way or another.
Why are you replying to me if you haven't read my post?
OP's quote isn't in the canons of the 3rd Council of Constantinople. 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."
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.
So the Orthodox count the Trullan Council as part of the Sixth Ecumenical Council?
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.
its a canon, not a anathema, its upto the church to apply it, or not in whatever way.
By the Orthodox?
Yes.
Tell that to the bishops, not to me.
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?
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.
Yes. 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)?
It's also called the Quinisext Council, you know.
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?
Are you sure? Rome pleases itself to think that Constantinople=Orthodox Church.
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.
The council is Quinisext or Trullan, not Third of Constantinople. The canons, however, often are regarded as canons of the 6th ecumenical council.
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?
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.
EP Athenagoras and every EP after him has used the terminology of "sister churches".
The Vatican released a document in 2000 specifically pointing out that the terminology of "sister churches" only applies to Rome and Constantinople.
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).