www.byzcath.org Forums Faith & Christian Life The Christian East & West What councils are binding upon Byzantines!

You just KNEW I would reply to this one, Rum... Then again, that's probably because you know no one has ever been able to satisfactorily answer this question.

Why will the Orientals "have to deal" with them, and accept them as binding? How come the seven are non-negotiable? Because admitting otherwise would require a major PR move to save face and you guys don't want to go through that? You're very content to make Rome do as much.

Of course, a lot of this depends on perspective. The sense I get from what's above is that, while Rome's other councils are a reminder of the breach with Orthodoxy, councils 4-7 are OK, and the Oriental Orthodox denial of them doesn't matter, as they were Monophysites anyway, and they need to get with the times and deny their heresy.

What if you take the position of an Oriental? Our more traditional folks call Greeks, Slavs, and Latins all Western Christians, and we'd say YOU left the Church when you embraced the dual nature teaching, and thus a kind of Nestorianism. Should we now demand, if the EO Churches desire reunion, the repudiation of 4-7 for all of you Western Christians?

Of course, such a position would take an axe to the ecumenical dialogue between EO's and OO's.

What's so special about the Chalcedonian councils? We never had the problems that required 5-7; those problems were Western. As far as Chalcedon goes, we preserve our teaching, while accepting that your dual nature teaching is not heretical, and you guys do the same for us. We accept that 4-7 were Orthodox in teaching. So why must we also recognise them as ecumenical?

The same kind of chauvinism that demands the entire East recognise 21 Ecumenical Councils demands that the Oriental Orthodox recognise seven, but no one is willing to come back to the Three and leave it at that.

Dear Rum,

You are another convert to Orthodoxy? Are there no cradle Orthodox here?

Well, the Administrator and I may disagree about the ecumenicity of the councils, but, as you can see, we both agree strongly that the councils are authoritative where they speak of faith and morals, ecumenical or not.

The fact is that there is liturgical diversity in the Catholic Church and that means that whenever a Latin Council talks about disciplinary or ritual issues from a Latin point of view, they have nothing to do with us - period.

That's not relativism. That's just common sense.

From our point of view, we MIGHT see Orthodox as relativistic since a convert might choose a particular jurisdiction over another because that one allows what the other doesn't and vice-versa. Works both ways, Big Guy, although I do see a trend among you convert to start with the OCA and then work your way towards the right to ROCOR et al. Just an observation that I hope is correct . . .

But there is something here that I don't understand.

So you as an Orthodox Convert see it as a wrong for Eastern Catholics to adopt the 21 Councils recognized by Rome, but right for Oriental Orthodox to be obliged to accept the latter four of your Absolute Seven?

And what about those Orthodox who add two more Ecumenical Councils (ie. Romanides)?

What is so special about seven, other than it is a mystical number?

What is also interesting is that the Oriental Orthodox, like Mor Ephrem, even bother with trying to approach the Eastern Orthodox who are taking a very "Roman" stance toward them in demanding they accept the latter four out of the Special Seven Councils.

You don't sound like you even want to discuss this with Qathuliqa Mor Ephrem, and you don't seem to want to even acknowledge the fact that the Oriental Orthodox Churches, the pre-Chalcedonian Orthodox as Brendan the Theologian calls them, COULD possibly acknowledge everything contained in the latter four without recognizing councils they weren't present at.

You must have been a convert from Roman Catholicism.

I still detect the pope in you.

Alex

A good point! That explains Rum�s black-and-white approach to Orthodoxy. He is still looking through Western eyes even though he has embraced Orthodoxy. This is a very common issue with converts.

Dear Administrator,

Whoops! We're back to agreeing with one another!

Sorry Nik! Forget what I said before!

Actually, Sir, (I'm talking to the Administrator here, Nik) Rum is wrong to say anything about the Pope in this matter.

We Ukrainian Catholics are known to be more papal than the Pope.

Even if the Pope ever tried to decentralize his powers, we would be right in there, brow-beating him and saying, "How could you!?"

God bless!

Alex

I must warn you all that I know aikido and I am willing to take you all on! lol

Mr. Adminstrator, fellow citizens of the Byzantine forum, I have much to say but little time.
First, since we tend to flucuate from subject to similiar & interrelated subjects, I will strike at some and not all issues. I will not retract that the Latins and the Byzantine Catholics are infected with relativism.
I was baptised Orthodox as a child by Melkite parents who became wannabe Latins. I attended Latin schools just for a short time only to accept the doctrine of agnosticism. I hope that answers your inquistive minds. I am a reconvert overcoming western sensibilites. lol. I don't know about joining ROCOR but God bless them & help them. Communing between Orthodox jurisdiction is a far cry from unia. Alex, you are right when you say that you see the pope in me because he was originally Orthodox.
As for my Oriental brethren whom I do share historic periods and being of Arab descent, this hellenized Arab sides with the hellenists in regards to having only Seven Ecumenical Councils. The number seven is good enough for all except for the heterodox and heretics. There is not going to be an Eighth Ecumenical Council and no need for any Orthodox Patriarch to invoke one. You guys are not united in the One Faith to invoke an 8th Ecumenical Council. The only Eighth Ecumenical Council we are going to have is the one on Judgment Day. I hope to see you all there at the top.

Mor Ephrem,
You guys are at fault for not understanding our position in the first place not vice verse. We did not were the title "monophysite". You guys confused the persons and the natures. Your churches are finally getting around to what we have been saying all along. We carried the torch between the extremes of monophysitism and nestorianism. You should know this by now. I eagerly await the official acceptance of Chalcedon Orthodoxy from your hiearchs.

Rum Orthodox:


Three cheers!

Your mea culpa is appreciated and accepted.

But, now, you say "the (P)ope was...originally Orthodox."!

When?


AmdG

Get a grip on yourself man! I speak of Popes that were in communion within Orthodoxy. Sorry to burst your bubbles of champaign. Try Rum!

Rum,

Do you ever get the feeling that the position you take is kind of like being stuck in the trenches with dried bones after the war is long gone?

Some how I get the feeling the Orthodox Church isn't going to make much of a dent in the world without those seperated from her both on the side with communion to Rome and on the Oriental Orthodox side.

My sympathies aside for the Roman Catholic and Russian Orthodox difficulties going on in Russia, but if Roman Catholicism is the biggest problem the Russian Church has to deal with in Russia - God help that Church because it in always is in a state of degration far worst then the oft quoted "AmChurch". For Roman Catholicism not even native to the states and can hold it's own in America.

I say this with no amount of pride in me or ties to Roman Catholicism - but the entire Eastern Orthodox world could blow away into dust and the world will still becken to the moral and political leadership of the Vatican. Catholicism will still grow in Africa and Asia and still make a presence in America. And Italy and Malta will still be folowing the Bishop of Rome not of Moscow.


Justin

Rum, we followed and still follow Saint Cyril. If we have confused person and nature, so did he. More probably, you are the confused.

You did not wear the title Monophysite, but our having that title is due to the inability of the West (Rome and Byzantium) to understand Saint Cyril. We wore nothing. You imputed it to us.

As for the rest of what you wrote, we could easily switch it on you at least as well. You guys are at fault for not understanding Saint Cyril and us. You guys sound dangerously like Nestorians. Your Churches are finally getting around to what we've been saying all along.

We could go on and on, back and forth, on this, without ever making any progress, because each side would like to be right.

The position of the Eastern Orthodox with regard to later Roman councils is that they are not ecumenical...only the seven both Rome and Eastern Orthodoxy share are considered ecumenical by the EO. So, as long as we're being minimalists about it, what is wrong with our recognising your councils as local Orthodox councils, but not recognising them as ecumenical? You still haven't made a convincing case as to why they should be considered ecumenical, other than to call us (implicitly, at least) monophysites, which we were never, and which you should know by now. All you've basically said in answer to "Why should we accept them as ecumenical?" is "Because they are." Such is not satisfactory, and yet this is basically what the EO tell the OO. There'll need to be a more convincing argument to recognising ecumenicity other than "We say so, now shut up" if there is to ever be Christian unity, at least in the East.

Dear Altar Boy:

First of all I would like to ask your pardon for my poor English. We Spaniards speak English really bad. I am Christian and although I belong to the Western Church I feel Byzantine catholic and I attend regularly byzantine rite Divine Liturgy. Some facts that we must take into account about General Councils in the Catholic Church:

a) Eastern bishops took part in the Councils of Lyon (patriarch of Constantinople (Bekkos?)and the very Byzantine emperor were there), Ferrara-Florence-Rome (metropolitans Bessarion of Nicea and Isidore of the Russian Church toguether with the emperor and patriarch Joseph and the antiunionist Mark of Ephesus and Scholarius) , Vatican I (the Melkite patriarch was initially against the definition of Pope Infability, that he finally acepted) and Vatican II (Melkite patriarch Maximos IV, of blessed memory, was one of the most important fathers of the Council). Council of Ferrara-F-R, in wich the whole union of the Easter and Western Churches was achieved although not for a very long time, was initially accepted by the whole byzantine (orthodox) church.
b) Council of Ferrara-F-R did not say anything about the acceptation of the previous "Catholic" Councils (Lateran Councils, Council of Lyon, etcetera)by the Greeks.
c)Eastern Catholic do not accept the decree of the II Vatican Councils about liturgy because it was writen just for the Latin Rite but they accept the decree about Eastern Catholic Churches, and all the other decrees.


So, Eastern Catholics accept the teaching of all the 21 councils about faith and morals but not about liturgy and canon law as far as they are particular regulations of the Roman (Latin) Church. Well, fortunatelly or not, Eastern Catholic Churches accept the 21 councils, although only the first seven ecumenical councils are celebrated in Byzantine liturgy and have a special place in the heart of the Eastern Christians (Orthodox or Catholic)as they are the cornerstone of our faith and tradition.
I do apologize again for my awful English.
Yours in Christ,
Francisco

P. S. When the Council of F-F-R had already finished there was a last dificulty to solve in order to achieve the whole union: the order of the names of the pope and the Byzantine emperor in the decrees of the Council. The Greeks said that the name of their emperor was to appear in fist place because that was the tradition of the Seven Ecumenical Councils from the times of Constantine the Great and the Council of Nicea. Finally the name of the pope appeared in first place.

Dear Rum,

Well, Orthodox are not united in sharing what you believe, Big Guy!

And who ever capped the Councils at 7? You mean all this talk among the Orthodox about an 8th council and preparations etc. is all heretical?

And John Meyendorff's contention that a union Council between East and West could take place and declare an 8th Council, the Council that restored ST Photios way back when, while declaring itself a 9th Council? Was Meyendorff another heretic too? You'd go to Russia just so you can participate in an outdoor Meyendorff book-burning "Partia?"

Eastern Orthodox theologians are open to the Oriental Orthodox Churches' concerns. Sorry that you are not.

But "Black and White" really only works in photography.

When I referred to the "pope in you," I actually was thinking more in terms of the medieval Popes as the Administrator said as well.

I would suggest that you are not as "Orthodox" as you think you are. There is still much that bespeaks of the medieval papacy in you, Convert Boy.

And you don't become Orthodox just by joining a parish, saying the Creed without the Filioque, and changing rosary beads for a prayer rope.

Right now, the only we get out of you is a papalism in reverse.

Alex

>>Francisco wrote:
So, Eastern Catholics accept the teaching of all the 21 councils about faith and morals but not about liturgy and canon law as far as they are particular regulations of the Roman (Latin) Church.

The fact that we accept the teachings of these councils as true has nothing to do with the fact that the later 14 councils are not ecumenical. This must always be understood.

Dear Francisco,

Essentially . . . you're right.

But as we Byzantines especially come to more deeply discover our rich Eastern liturgical and theological patrimony, we realize that the points of faith defined by those Councils and by the Popes are ALREADY part and parcel of what we have ALWAYS believed.

For example, the Immaculate Conception doctrine was proclaimed by the Latin Church to affirm that the Mother of God was never "tainted" by any sin, including Original Sin.

Do we as Byzantines accept that? We have, but we don't need to now that we've come to realize that a) The Eastern Churches never accepted the Augustinian idea of a "stain" of Original Sin and b) our liturgy celebrates the Conception of St Anne which means that Our Lady was conceived in holiness (as was St John the Baptist whose conception is also celebrated) since only the feast of a Saint may be celebrated liturgically.

And our liturgical prayers sing of the complete Holiness of the Mother of God.

With all due respect, we have a much higher and greater veneration for the All-Holy Mother of God than the West. There is nothing the West can teach the East, and I mean ALL Eastern Churches, in this regard.

Purgatory? We've always prayed for the dead, in 12 periods throughout the year and every Saturday especially. We don't like to doctrinalize about the issue, as we cannot know too much about how God brings us into His Kingdom. But our prayer for the dead is a characteristic feature of our liturgical heritage.

Morals? We don't divide sin into mortal and venial. We say that all sin separates us from God and must be confessed in a much more public context in Church than is to be had in the private confessional.

To acknowledge the 21 Councils is one thing. But apart from the papacy (and even here we have our own historic traditions with respect to the Petrine Minister), there is not one thing in faith and morals that those Councils can teach us that we don't already believe and practice.

The same is true for the Oriental Orthodox who base their faith on the first 3 Councils. The later Byzantine four Councils add NOTHING to their understanding of Christology, Trinitarian theology, iconography etc.

Mor Eprem, my man! How's that?

Alex

Alex, when are you going to publish and Eastern Christian catechism? I would like to pre-order 20-30 copies to give to friends and for my own use. By the way, you still haven't told me why you Ukies give those three kisses on the cheeks? Don