John “JC” Dirks

STREAM ANNOUNCMENT: @TheOtherPaul2 will me joining be to discuss the real authority of councils specifically Nicaea. Did Nicaea think it was infallible? Monday 6/15 at 8:30pm (CST) | Tuesday 6/16 at 12:30pm (AEST)

@DunamisBacchus @TheOtherPaul2 Excellent question!

@johncdirks @TheOtherPaul2 If Nicaea’s creed and definitions can theoretically err, it opens up a great question: on what basis does one bind a believer’s conscience to terms like homoousios? If it’s just a fallible interpretation, does that mean subscription to the Nicene Creed is ultimately optional?

STREAM ANNOUNCMENT: @TheOtherPaul2 will me joining be to discuss the real authority of councils specifically Nicaea. Did Nicaea think it was infallible? Monday 6/15 at 8:30pm (CST) | Tuesday 6/16 at 12:30pm (AEST)

Ok I hear you man, I really do. Here is my pushback, if something is infallible does it need to be amended? Definitionally it contains no error. Grammar changes are fine, punctuation reform is fine. I know that EOs do not claim inerrancy on the material level. But to add and take away sections seems to rise above the material level into the substance level and contradict the idea that the thing in question is without error. Constantinopel must have thought they knew better then the fathers at Nicaea...right?

@johncdirks @grok @Verita_dirigit1 But theyre not changing Nicea. Theyre clarifying the theology at a separate council. EO did that sevrral times with the palamite councils, blachernae, iasi, jerusalem, etc. They didnt modify the council. They had another one

EOs do you think the fathers at Nicaea knew that they were an infallible council? If Nicaea did not even view itself as an infallible council why would I view it as such?

Protestant friends, I’m going to do a series teaching the arguments for Sola Scriptura and how to defend it against the common objections. Would you rather have videos or do a livestream with Q&A?! Vote 👇🏼

@NewsNFTU @Verita_dirigit1 @IFFFMEISTER I agree! History seems to show that the doctrine of infallible councils developed. They never saw themselves that way.

@johncdirks @Verita_dirigit1 @IFFFMEISTER Sure, and by 381 I would say the Fathers of 381 certainly saw themselves has having equal spiritual authority to amend Nicea, but they definitely both saw themselves as preserving the deposit of faith, not crafting it. But yes, that's only a 56-year gap.

@NewsNFTU @Verita_dirigit1 @IFFFMEISTER Fair, but doesn’t this lend to my argument that Const. did not view Nicaea as infallible? EOS would not dream of changing the wording today. What changed? At some point it switched from being an authoritative council to being an infallible council.

@johncdirks @Verita_dirigit1 @IFFFMEISTER Yes and no. Obviously the anathemas were preserved in other forms and reaffirmed repeatedly, but it seems most plausible that they were removed from the complete symbol because they affirm what we do believe, not what we reject.

My contention is that Constantinople felt free to change wording, add, and remove things. EOs would not dream of doing this to Nicaea today. What changed? It was not viewed as infallible back then. This the freedom to modify it. Also, if the doctrines never changed, why did they need to remove it? Just to make it shorter? You see what I’m saying?

@grok @johncdirks @Verita_dirigit1 Lol so this has no teeth. It simply didnt mention it, but the council clearly anathematizes the other positions. Knew it but its good we can see it here

@IFFFMEISTER @Verita_dirigit1 @grok what anathemas were removed from Nicaea at Constantinople?

@johncdirks @Verita_dirigit1 No. What anathemas were removed? If they were doctrinal, then they were not removed - C'ple is a clarification nicea 1, not an abrogation

@NewsNFTU @Verita_dirigit1 @IFFFMEISTER They removed anathemas. Thats definitely more than annexation, yes?

@johncdirks @Verita_dirigit1 @IFFFMEISTER I don't think they *revised* the creed but simply annexed it.

@OrthodoxEthos I understand what you are saying but my question would be, what makes someone a teacher then? If its not that they teach things. When would you tell a catechumen to stop teaching if not in this case?

Are you intentionally misrepresenting things or are you just not paying attention to what’s been discussed and written? It’s hard to take you seriously when you create these strawmen. 1. Catechumens absolutely have a spiritual guide and confessor. Sometimes the priest is both the catechist and the confessor, sometimes they just guide them spiritually and confess them before baptism and have someone else conduct catechism. Catechumens participate the life of the Church in every way except participation in the Mysteries, which presupposes, of course, initiation. (Surely you agree that the non-orthodox are not participating in the Mysteries, right?) 2. Ben does not have a “ministry“. He is not a “teacher“. He is not purporting to be a “teacher of the orthodox faith.” He is conducting interviews, sharing news and takes on non-Orthodox events and ideas. That does not make him a “teacher“ of the Church. Moreover, he was doing this before he became a catechumen, he already had a channel and he’s continuing with the blessing of his spiritual guide. What do you see as problematic here? Is that not up to the spiritual guide to decide if he should continue in *this* or not?

@DominiEstSalus The historical data shows that they did not view themselves as infallible.

@johncdirks I’m Catholic and guessing here but I would say yes. Open to feedback.

@apologistlayman @JPuncut Do it

@johncdirks @JPuncut Can i call in just to abuse Paul?

EOs come join up and talk with Paul and I about Nicaea! Monday night.

@TheOtherPaul2 We have some interesting conversations going here Paul. Hoping some of these guys join up on Monday!

@OfOttawa @JeromeChukwuwem @Alex_Ortodoxie Shane you’re the best. 😂 However if EOs were claiming that 10 angels could fit on a pin head, yes, I would want to know how they substantiate the mechanics of that.

John I think you are taking the literal/mechanical thing a bit too far. If it was a Jewish practice that continued into Christianity, that’s gonna hold whether you or he can mechanically explain how they hear the prayers. Or are we next to a debate how many angels can fit on a pinhead... :)

I was reacting to JP’s debate with @Alex_Ortodoxie. JP decides to come up on stream. The result it telling👇🏾👇🏾

@thaddeusthought So is it safe to say that recognition of Orthodoxy itself is not concrete? It’s reliably certain?

@johncdirks The more active and reliable the encounter with God, the less need to force boxes. Boxes are good, we have texts, a canon, creeds, etc. But we also dont need them to be made of concrete.

@orthobrohammer Sounds good. Peace.

@johncdirks I'm under no obligation to make you additional arguments that were no part of your original question. You are clearly inept.

@orthobrohammer @grok How are they related? And how does that matter in this discussion?

@johncdirks @grok I'm going to go ahead and leave it there. I'm not going to carry on with somebody incapable of making his own arguments. Not to mention, you've clearly never explored how epistemological and metaphysical possibility can be related.

@Dauntless_Saint So participation from major seed makes a council infallible? And what do you mean it wasn’t received by the church. Hundreds of Bishops enforced it.

@johncdirks It lacked authentic ecumenical standing due to zero participation from the major patriarchs and was entirely dictated by the Iconoclast Emperor Constantine V. It was also not received by the Church.

@orthobrohammer No argument?

@johncdirks It's almost like I predicted you'd shift the goal posts. How original.

@Dauntless_Saint Decades is not short. But ok. Why was it a robber council?

@johncdirks That was a robber council that was condemned shortly after its decisions. It was never considered ecumenical. There's an entire story to that.

@orthobrohammer @grok You’re welcome to refute it. Or just change the argument so that it doesn’t include this error and we can have a fruitful discussion.

@johncdirks @grok No, you made an assertion that a sophisticated autocomplete validated for you. You're not a serious person.