www.byzcath.org Forums Faith & Christian Life Faith & Theology The Ecumenical Councils: Are there 21 or only 7?

Apotheoun's response to Roman Army regarding papal infallibility is well put: the pope of Rome is infallible because the Church is infallible.

I might add here that the teaching of Vatican I cannot be that the pope is personally infallible, as if his ex catherdra pronouncements are true because HE pronounced them. Only God's "pronouncements" are true in that way. Rather, the pope's ex catherdra pronouncements are binding because they are true and the pope, holding the Chair of Peter, speaks with the authority of the Universal Church to whom the truth has been revealed.

A man who holds the office of pope might utter heresy while claiming to speak ex catherdra. In such a case, of course, the pope would be speaking as pope only accidentally not essentially and the measure of this is the truth.

Thus, the authority of the pope is, in this sense, like the authority of a scientist. The authority of the scientist is not arbitrary or whimsical, but dependent on the truth. If a scientist's claims are not well-founded or false, he lacks, to that extent, scientific authority. The same is the case with the pope, the difference being that the pope's ex catherdra formulations are expressing divine revelation and thereby have an ultimate authority derived from their source.

Dr. Michael

Dear Dr Michael,

While the Church, the Body of Christ, is most certainly infallible as it is vivified and breathes with the Holy Spirit, the issue of how this infallibility is manifested remains and we are still in the conciliar/papal quagmire.

In fact, from the Orthodox point of view, the popes of Rome since at least the 13th century do not share in the charism of ecclesial infallibility since they are deemed to have fallen into heresy.

In addition, it is not clear whether a papal pronouncement or definition is dependent on what the College of Bishops say - or whether the College of Bishops are dependent on what the Pope says.

Dr Alex

the pope's ex catherdra pronouncements are binding because they are true and the pope, holding the Chair of Peter, speaks with the authority of the Universal Church to whom the truth has been revealed.

Is this something that the Orthodox would be willing to sign unto? And if not, is there still a way for reunion to take place?

Of course contraception is immoral.

Todd, would you mind expandng on this? I don't know any Eastern Orthodox who think contraception is immoral. So how does this jive with the whole "Orthodox in communion with Rome" thing? If your viewpoint is the same as the Orthodox then why condemn contraception?

It looks like this thread will be going on for eternity. Didn't think it would turn out to be so long.

First it should be noted that the Eastern Orthodox Churches are not monolithic, and so there are variations in their practices and beliefs. But I have met several Russian Orthodox in the SF area and they hold that contraception is immoral. Moreover, I believe the Russian Orthodox Church in Russia has condemned it as well, so the fact that some Orthodox Churches are vague on the matter doesn't mean that all are. Contraception is a modern issue, so no Eastern Orthodox Church can claim that it is morally permissible as a part of Tradition, because quite clearly Tradition has never allowed anything that destroys the nature of the conjugal act.

Matt writes that he does not "know any Eastern Orthodox who think contraception is immoral."

Matt must have led a sheltered life. There is no lack of Orthodox teachers of the faith who do not hesitate to state that contraception is immoral.

Incognitus

Matt must have led a sheltered life. There is no lack of Orthodox teachers of the faith who do not hesitate to state that contraception is immoral.

LOL. Yes, my life has been quite sheltered I should have been more specific in my previous post though. I am not aware that any Eastern Orthodox church holds contraception to be immoral. I'm not sure that Todd's statement about the Russians is accurate, though I could obviously be wrong. I am aware that as a matter of personal opinion there are Orthodox who believe it to be wrong. However, I should also add that I've been to quite a few Orthodox churches in various parts of the country and have yet to encounter anyone who condemns it. The statement that I have always been given is that contraception is o.k. because it was previously inextricably linked with abortion, which is obviously wrong. However, since modern methods of contraception do not result in abortion then it is fine to use contraception. That seems to be the majority, if not consensus opinion, of the Eastern Orthodox.

The following article deals with the issue of contraception and the Russian Church:

Russian Orthodox Church Condemns Contraception, Abortion, Promiscuity as Reasons for Population Crisis

MOSCOW, October 7, 2004 (LifeSiteNews.com) - The Assembly of Hierarchs of the Russian Orthodox Church condemned abortion, contraception, pre and extra-marital sexual activity as reasons for the collapse of the Russian population Wednesday.

Church leaders said the pervasive use of so-called "family planning" by women -- contraception, sterilization, and abortion -- is "a pernicious practice that leads not only to the reduction of the country's population but also to its moral degradation," according to an Information Telegraph Agency of Russia report.

Orthodox officials also met with Russian President Vladimir Putin to discuss the issues. When asked about Russia's most severe population decline, as experienced in the Trans-Baikal region, Putin said, "Siberia and the Far East are experiencing depopulation, and although this process has slightly slowed down lately, this is a very acute problem." Putin maintained that the population problem is chiefly an economic one.

While admitting that economics plays a factor, Church delegates said "the main cause" of the demographic crisis "is in the field of morals."

Click here for the original article: Russian Orthodox Church condemns Contraception [lifesite.net]

In an interview conducted on 24 April 2005, Russian Orthodox Bishop Hilarion Alfeyev of Vienna said the following in connection with a Catholic / Orthodox alliance to protect Christian civilization in Europe:

Father John Schroedel, a priest of the Orthodox Church of America, wrote the following about contraception in his Masters Thesis at St. Vladimir's Seminary:

Theological consensus in the Orthodox Churches is not merely a synchronic reality; rather, it is a diachronic reality. In other words, what the present generation holds must conform to what has always been held.

Now of course that doesn't mean that there aren't Orthodox Christians who support contraception, but the same can be said about Catholics, because there are many Catholics who are in an open state of dissent from the Church's teaching on contraception, but that doesn't alter the Church's teaching itself. Instead, it shows that a large number of Catholics are failing to live their faith as they should.

This paper should be seen as an attempt to reanchor the North American Orthodox churches in the tradition, which they have mostly abandoned.
The recent statements by the Russian Church are hopeful, but in this country contraception has been accepted, officially or quasi-officially, by every Orthodox Church [ROCOR may be an exception to this, and at any rate are certainly more hesitant, though I haven't seen anything like an official rejection of artificial contraception]. Indeed, this failure to affirm the Apostolic Tradition is a good argument for me for the infallibility of the Pope.
And the modern contraception pill- the most common means of preventing births- does expel the fertilized ovum if conception is not prevented. Thus at least sometimes it works as an abortifacient.
-Daniel

The Orthodox Churches in the Americas make up maybe 1 to 2 percent of all the Orthodox worldwide, and they are not representative of the mainstream of Orthodoxy, any more than Catholics in America are representative of mainstream Catholicism.

Nevertheless, Catholics in the United States make up almost 7 percent of all Catholics worldwide, and one could argue that contraception has a "quasi-official" status in the United States, since the US bishops only give lip service (and they rarely do that) to the Papal teaching against contraception.

Both the Russian Orthodox Church and the Antiochian Church have taught that contraception is immoral. For example, Fr. Reardon, an Antiochian priest, has written an excellent article condemning contraception.

Finally, I think it is very important to remember that Americans are not representative when it comes to matters of this kind, whether they are Catholic or Orthodox, they tend to represent a rather materialist and hedonistic view of the meaning of life.

As Bishop Hilarion has indicated, we are all, Catholics and Orthodox alike, in a war for the survival of Christian civilization.

Alex,

You are quite right that, even with a proper understanding of papal infallibility, there remain unanswered questions and ambiguities.

I only wanted to make the point that, whatever papal infallibility means, it cannot mean that the man who is the pope is personally infallible.

As to the Orthodox Churches not in communion with Rome, it seems that there is no uniformity about heretical status of various Catholic teachings.

Dr. Michael

Someone more learned in theology than I (which includes just about everyone on the Forum) needs to explain something for me without the appeal to authority (only Western Catholics can do that in the Pope) and some other logical gymnastics. The Eastern Orhtodox and Eastern Catholics say that there are only 7 Ecumenical Councils because that's what they accept and that everyone was represented at those councils. But, there are a good number of Christians who only accept the first 3 councils because of the same principle. Only at Nicea I, Constantinople I, and Ephesus was the whole Church from Spain to India represented and whole of the Church accepts these councils. So, by the criteria that the majority of the East has set, it seems to me that if we go by what the Orthodox uses as a criterion then we can only say that there are 3 Ecumenical Councils. Now, if we say that those in which the Pope presides over by being present or by proxy then that clears up this mess. Please tell me where I'm wrong, if I'm wrong, or where the reasoning is faulty.