Hello my friend appreciate you sharing your thoughts in a detailed respectful response. I'm actually hoping to go into writing on these topics some more in 2025, provide more context on the quotes etc. Thanks again for engaging.
Dear ST, you bring up a fair number of points here, especially about people in one denomination stating that others are condemned to hell. It is best to judgement where in belongs - in God's hands.
When you quote Schaff you state that the definition of anathema as understood by Catholic Church, which included the Orthodox at the time of Nicaea 2, is condemnation to hell. However, when you read Schaff more closely you will see that the definitions you quote are not those of a Council or Pope, but a third-hand report of a former archbishop who had resigned due to the scandal of having an emperor dictate to him what doctrine and practice should be (rather than accepting martyrdom), was living out the rest of his day performing penance in a monastery and he was on his deathbed.
Further, you quote anathemas as coming from the Council which was actually the public statement made by a bishop who had similarly bowed to the wishes of the former emperor in order to avoid being killed and now wanted admittance to the Council and was declaring his new-found loyalty to the traditional faith. When the Council accepted his statement, then all the other bishops in a similar situation signed onto his statement. But it was NOT the statement of the Council.
And one last thing: you note that it is curious that a previous Council had published the exact opposite teaching and anathemas. How can the Catholic and Orthodox Churches claim to be inspired teachers when they apparently turn on a dime? The answer lies in how a given Council is constituted and who approves of its publications. The earlier Council was called by the Byzantine emperor, who was happily killing everyone who disagreed with him, burning monasteries, sacking churches, etc. Pretty much all the bishops who came lived within his empire and wanted to continue to live and he got the declarations he wanted. However, this council's documents were condemned by most outside of the Byzantine Empire (Frankfurt being an exception) but including the Pope. The Second Council of Nicaea was accepted by the whole Church including the Pope so it is seen as having valid authority.
Thanks for spelling out your argument in detail, listing your sources and including accurate footnotes. These are all notes of an "honest broker" in discussions that can become contentious. I am happy you are engaging in strong argument in a search for Truth.
Hello my friend appreciate you sharing your thoughts in a detailed respectful response. I'm actually hoping to go into writing on these topics some more in 2025, provide more context on the quotes etc. Thanks again for engaging.
Dear ST, you bring up a fair number of points here, especially about people in one denomination stating that others are condemned to hell. It is best to judgement where in belongs - in God's hands.
When you quote Schaff you state that the definition of anathema as understood by Catholic Church, which included the Orthodox at the time of Nicaea 2, is condemnation to hell. However, when you read Schaff more closely you will see that the definitions you quote are not those of a Council or Pope, but a third-hand report of a former archbishop who had resigned due to the scandal of having an emperor dictate to him what doctrine and practice should be (rather than accepting martyrdom), was living out the rest of his day performing penance in a monastery and he was on his deathbed.
Further, you quote anathemas as coming from the Council which was actually the public statement made by a bishop who had similarly bowed to the wishes of the former emperor in order to avoid being killed and now wanted admittance to the Council and was declaring his new-found loyalty to the traditional faith. When the Council accepted his statement, then all the other bishops in a similar situation signed onto his statement. But it was NOT the statement of the Council.
And one last thing: you note that it is curious that a previous Council had published the exact opposite teaching and anathemas. How can the Catholic and Orthodox Churches claim to be inspired teachers when they apparently turn on a dime? The answer lies in how a given Council is constituted and who approves of its publications. The earlier Council was called by the Byzantine emperor, who was happily killing everyone who disagreed with him, burning monasteries, sacking churches, etc. Pretty much all the bishops who came lived within his empire and wanted to continue to live and he got the declarations he wanted. However, this council's documents were condemned by most outside of the Byzantine Empire (Frankfurt being an exception) but including the Pope. The Second Council of Nicaea was accepted by the whole Church including the Pope so it is seen as having valid authority.
Thanks for spelling out your argument in detail, listing your sources and including accurate footnotes. These are all notes of an "honest broker" in discussions that can become contentious. I am happy you are engaging in strong argument in a search for Truth.