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

How does one know when a particular council has been rec'd by the church?

In your mind what is unclear about it? The only thing unclear about it to me is there is no exact formula which means there still is uncertainty involved. But I'm not sure if this is your concern with it or if there are other issues.

I think this is a very good point.

Eric

Dear Administrator,

I don't know if we accept the Western teaching on Original Sin as valid and correct . . .

There are at present two legitimate ways of understanding Original Sin in the West, with current Roman teaching tending toward the one that is closest to the Eastern Fathers.

Fr. McBrien in his CATHOLICISM gives two versions of the Immaculate Conception doctrine based on the two versions of Original Sin.

In both cases, it is not how we view OS that is important, but that we affirm the sinlessness and total holiness of the Mother of God from her Conception.

My own view is that doctrines of both East and West are different ways of stating a common truth.

"Original Sin" is a common truth that we both hold, East and West I mean, although we have differed in the past on the Augustinian concept of "stain" - and the Latin Church has never defined it as such, only tended to hold it with Augustine.

"Immaculate Conception" is a Latin doctrine that expresses our commonly held faith that the Mother of God, in virtue of her exalted position as Mother of the Word Incarnate, was sanctified from her Conception as Most Holy.

"Papal Infallibility" is the West's doctrine on affirming that the Church will always be guarded from error by the Spirit.

We also affirm that, although we see the Petrine Ministry more within the collegial context of the Bishop of Rome in union with the other Bishops throughout the world.

So, as I see it anyway, we, as Orthodox in communion with Rome, accept the "pith and substance" of the new Roman doctrines as they have always been part of our ancient Orthodox Catholic faith. But we don't accept the Particular theological heritage of the West that determines the language and other aspects of those doctrines that are inconsequential to their meaning anyway.

But I give you my permission to disagree with me .

Alex

Bless me a sinner, Fr. Elias,

I was just having some fun with Rum, whose "holier than thou" convert attitude does provoke me to . . . (Relax, Rum).

We are certainly not allowed to receive formal blessings from those deemed heretical.

I just wanted to make that clear to Rum. As a lot of new converts to Orthodoxy I know who are in a hurry to join it, he may not have had an opportunity to read up on this point yet . . .

But he is wonderful, isn't he?

Alex

In the name of the Father, the Son, the Holy Spirit. One God, Amen.

Dude I beg you a pardon! Mor Ephrem's Church and Christian tradition (Indain/Syriac), just like most of the other Oriental Churches, has been around since the times of the Apostles and has experienced and nurtured in its own spiritual growth for the past 2,000 years. I do not know what prompted you to make that statement and make it appear as if Oriental Orthodox are newcomers and babies that have not grown to experience the controversies that have taken place in the West (west of us that is ) like the Eastern Orthodox "Adults' have. Seriously, do you have your chronology in order? Everything of importance that happened in the history of Christianity does not center on what happened in Rome or Constantinople. Christ commanded his apostles to go to ALL NATIONS and Baptize. So just as St. Peter and St. Paul left for Rome. St. Mark, St. Philip, and St. Thomas went places where they encountered Egyptians, Ethiopians and Indians. Get it straight.

I do not have any problems from what I have read about these other councils, in particular the one about the Icons. But like the Administrator said on another thread, that is like hearing of some foreign council of chefs canonizing the "correct' recipe for spaghetti which I was already successfully making for millennia. In fact we have had our own controversies and decisions that would probably not make much sense to you. Some of our controversies were entirely local in origin. But I would have to say that most of the time the controversies have correlated with presence of foreign missionaries (the forerunners of colonialism); this is the case with the "hulet lidet (two births)' and "sost lidet (three births) controversies a couple hundred years ago for instance. On our own, we do not like to fight and bicker that much.

We are having our OWN Icon crisis. In part because of the Judaic background to Ethiopian Christianity we are having a problem with statues of Mary and Jesus. We have no problems with paintings but the statues that many people are importing from Europe are becoming too prevalent. But you see back in the day the king authorized some foreign architects to design “Trinity Cathedral” in Addis Ababa. It looks like a typical Catholic Cathedral with pews and all. On the outside are so many statues, some of Angels and others I am not sure what they are supposed to be. But what ever, they are not in the Ethiopian tradition and violate our Church rules. But the King authorized it and presumably the late Patriarch. But there is a growing movement of old people and young people who are out right opposed to these "innovations.' In any case whatever decision we make out of this experience is relevant to us. We do hope that you may learn something in it but in no way do we wish to impose it upon you in the future.

God Be With You

Besime Ab, we Weld, we Menfis Qidus. Ahadu Amlak, Amen.

Alex,

You are no heretic to me! So I am glad that you enjoyed the prayer information. I apologize for making it difficult by adding in the mid-night prayer; actually I thought it would be easy for you since I was under the impression that you don't sleep

Mor Ephrem,

Yeah yeah, just another example of your humility. Well, keep me in your prayers. It is always rewarding to be prayed for by such humble people.

I would dare say that sooner or later the Oriental Churches would have had to deal with the very same issues that the Byzantines had to go through. In fact, I believe they had similiar issues & circumstances but they were not etched out in stone like our 4th-7th Ecumenical Councils. It serves you no good to play charades with me nor am I playing them with you.

Dear Rum,

Aklie already covered this, but I'll just reiterate that we've been around as long as you and the Latins have been around, and in the course of two thousand years, we have not had the problems you guys had that required the councils including and after Chalcedon.

I would like to know from you and other Orientals: in accordance of the teachings of the 4th-7th Ecumenical Councils is what we teach not always have been taught from the beginning of our united Churches? For example, the iconoclasm heresy reigned for centuries and continues to flourish in the Protestant world if not moreso in the Islamic world. Do you think the 7th Ecumenical Council is not true for you and for us in the face of this dangerous world? If you know that the basis of iconography is based upon the Incarnation how can the 7th Ecumenical Council be less in worth in comparison to the first three ecumenical councils?

I don't dispute that councils 4-7 are Orthodox: they are. I just dispute that they are ecumenical in the way that the first Three are.

For instance, the teaching of the seventh council on icons and how they relate to the Incarnation is entirely Orthodox. But the whole reason you guys needed a council for that is because you guys had the problem with that; we did not. In fact, I would venture to guess that the reason Eastern Orthodox churches are often covered wall to wall with icons is to emphasise this teaching against the iconoclastic tendencies that your Churches once had. However, in some churches in India, you won't see any icons at all. Why? Not because we are iconoclasts, but because we've never had a problem with that teaching that would make us look suspicious if we didn't have icons. The emphasis on icons in the EO Church (like Eucharistic adoration in the West) counteracts the iconoclastic (or anti-Eucharistic) tendencies once present. We never had those problems, so it's not an issue. No icons, no problem. All icons, no problem. But if I ever walked into an Eastern Orthodox parish without even the icons of Christ and the Mother of God, I'd be very curious...

If our dangerous world hasn't prevented us from denying the value of icons for two thousand years, I don't know if it ever will. As for your last remark on "worth", I never said that the teaching wasn't Orthodox, and thus of lesser or no value. I affirm all that is in councils 4-7 as orthodox (although many OO Christians I know have problems with Chalcedon); but I do not recognise these later councils as ecumenical.

And Aklie, my brother, you'll have to believe me that I'm not humble. The reason for that is that I have no problem telling you that I'm not a liar. So if I tell you I'm not humble, I'm not lying. But thank you for your support and prayers, and know you are always in mine.

Dear Qathuliqa,

I accept everything you have to say, along with Aklie, and have no problems with it.

You know why?

Because I'm in Communion with Rome and can see beyond my own Particular parochialism - at least when I'm prodded

You've stated the argument in the best traditions of the Oriental Orthodox theologians, respected worldwide.

Alex

Alex,

This seems to be glossing over the issue. If the Pope issues an ex-cathedra statement then will you necessarily believe it is true? I.e., if JP2 wakes up tomorrow and solemnly defines something and says this must be believed by the entire Catholic church then will you believe it?

I seem to get vague answers to questions on these issues. I'm not saying you have been vague - only that I have asked once or twice here and there don't seem to be any official answers to the questions above which seems odd.

Mr. Dragani's answers seem lucid and well articulated but many here don't seem to agree with him.

Anyway, I'd be curious to the answer to my question.

Eric

As I do not believe the Catholic doctrine of infalibility allows the Pope to make up new doctrines, Alex would not have to believe anything he doesn't already, right?

Axios

Eric,

There are specific criteria for the pope to issue an ex-cathedra statement. He would not do so without consultation with the bishops and what he pronounces as ex-cathedra would have to be a formal statement of what the Church has always believed and taught. Such a statement would be no more than a clear summary of the Church teaching, one that had not perhaps been put in those words before. He could not state ex-cathedra, for example, that Mary is not the Theotokos because that would not be in accordance with what the Church has always believed. Keep in mind that the popes have only spoken ex-cathedra a handful of times.

When a pope speaks ex-cathedra we accept what he speaks as true. We are not required to make it our own. In the case of the Immaculate Conception, for example, we accept that the Western approach to original sin and the theology of Immaculate Conception are true and correct. We do not and have not replaced the traditional Byzantine theology of original sin with the Western one. The theological case for the Immaculate Conception can be made using the Eastern theology of original sin and several Orthodox theologians have done so (Gennadios Scholarios is one).

I realize that some Byzantine Catholics give a well-articulated Latin approach to this issue as if it were the Eastern approach. These folks are well-intentioned and most likely educated in Roman Catholic schools and universities so this is what they have been taught. Sadly, there are very few people in our Church that actually have a Byzantine mindset. We Byzantines have a lot of work to do to teach our own people the theology of Byzantium.

Admin

Mor Ephrem,
It is strange to me that you would recognize the Orthodoxy of 4th-7th Ecumenical Council but in the same breath deny their ecumenicity! You are not semantically consistent in your beliefs. I think you are not clear on the topic and perhaps need to look into it a little bit more. If the iconclasts were to have succeeded & reigned over our Churches I am certain they would have come for you in full force. It no different than Hitler finishing of the Jews and then eventually going after the Arabs. He certainly did not have an affinity for the semites anymore than the iconoclasts had for us iconophiliacs. Your future & fate is mystically tied to ours whether or not you personally accept the ecumencity of the 4th-7th Ecumenical Councils. It's best to accept them rather than trying to debate or question their universality & apostolicity since you do not question their orthodoxy.

Just because the teachings are ecumenical does not mean the council was.

What I mean by that is that the later councils of the Eastern Orthodox did not teach anything new, they reaffirmed things we'd already believed, but which you guys had issues with. So we already recognise the teachings as orthodox, universal, apostolic, whatever. The teachings are ecumenical in that they apply to all. But what we question is how ecumenical the councils were. They didn't involve us; we weren't there. So even if the teachings are ecumenical in the sense that they apply to all, can the council itself be considered ecumenical even though we weren't there? I don't think so.

Mor Ephrem,
With all due respect, the problem I sense with your thinking is that your are not thinking. Are you telling me that on the issue of the iconoclasm the Oriental Orthodox Churches never had to deal with this in midst of the Islamic world? Give me a break! These were your issues as well despite our lack of comunication at the 4th Ecumenical Council. We all know you, the Oriental Orthodox, were not there for the last 4 Ecumenical Councils. Nevertheless, they are Orthodox Councils. You recognize the teachings as good for all people and at all times. How could they not be ecumenical? Because you were not there? It sounds as if you doubt the the action of the Holy Spirit in these last 4 Ecumenical Councils. You say they are certainly orthodox but do not apply to you & to the rest of the world! You make no orthodox sense. Iconoclasm continues to thrive in our day and age but you would say the 7th Ecumenical Council does not matter because your ancestors were not there. This makes absolutely no sense. Get with the program. You are now invited as you all have been invited to accept them as ecumenical. This would add much stronger weight in the eyes of the world and that "they may be one". This hesitation on your behalf to accept their ecumenicity is probably the current situation or reaction of your hiearchs and the delay to an official proclamation of being united in one Faith. The ball is in your park. Play ball or continue to forfeit the ecumenical value of our councils which are your councils as well.

With all due respect, Rum, the problem I perceive in you is that you're not listening.

Are you telling me that on the issue of the iconoclasm the Oriental Orthodox Churches never had to deal with this in midst of the Islamic world? Give me a break!

First of all, if you know of instances where the Islamic tendency to iconoclasm has ever directly affected the Oriental Orthodox Churches, then let me know. But as far as I know, the iconoclastic tendencies of Muslims never affected our faith or practice in any way.

Second of all, what the Muslims want to teach for their religion is their concern. It isn't Christianity. If the Muslims wanted/want the Oriental Orthodox to reject icons, they can want that all they want. For two thousand years, we haven't done any such thing, and we don't intend to.

As far as I know, Muslim feelings on this never entered into the equation with us. However, it is well known that it was the Chalcedonian Christians of the East who were divided between iconodules and iconoclasts, and I don't know how much of this is due to the Muslims. At any rate, you guys are the ones who rejected icons, and then the teaching on icons was definitively taught by the seventh council. You are the guys who needed the help, not us.

So is the teaching a universal one? Of course. That is why we have always taught it, unlike some. But is the council that defined that teaching ecumenical and universal? No. The teaching and the council are two different things.

We all know you, the Oriental Orthodox, were not there for the last 4 Ecumenical Councils. Nevertheless, they are Orthodox Councils.

No one is denying that they are Orthodox in their theology. What we have a difference of opinion on is whether or not they are ecumenical. We say they cannot possibly be ecumenical, for the reason to which you yourself explicitly referred.

It sounds as if you doubt the the action of the Holy Spirit in these last 4 Ecumenical Councils. You say they are certainly orthodox but do not apply to you & to the rest of the world! You make no orthodox sense.

I don't doubt one bit the action of the Holy Spirit in these last four councils. If He wasn't there, they wouldn't be Orthodox in their teaching. But, we weren't at those councils, and so we cannot say they were ecumenical. An ecumenical council is a council of the whole Church. Are we not a part of the Church? And yet we were absent, so we cannot regard them as ecumenical. The teachings apply to us (with the exception, perhaps, of Chalcedon, which does not jive with our theology, although we recognise it as orthodox and correct). But the councils are not ecumenical from our perspective...they are general councils of the Western Christians.

Iconoclasm continues to thrive in our day and age but you would say the 7th Ecumenical Council does not matter because your ancestors were not there. This makes absolutely no sense. Get with the program.

I did not say that.

I said that the teaching does matter. But you cannot say that the council was truly ecumenical because we, an integral part of the Church, were not present.

You are now invited as you all have been invited to accept them as ecumenical. This would add much stronger weight in the eyes of the world and that "they may be one".

I suppose we could recognise them as ecumenical. But before we sign on, should we not agree? Councils 5-7 present little to no problem, but Chalcedon is the main sticking point. There are some among us, both clergy and lay, who still believe that Chalcedonian theology on the two natures of Christ is dangerously close to Nestorianism, something which is avoided by the formula of Saint Cyril, and who still hold that the Tome of Leo is just plain bad theology. Therefore, and in light of the fact of our long separation, it will probably take a while before all of us are convinced (as I am) that Chalcedonian theology really is as you guys say it is. Certainly you don't want to rush a reunion in the name of unity, only to see it crumble soon after? Before we sign on to anything, we should all agree.

But, as long as we're inviting each other to consider the councils, how about this? How about we invite you to recognise the fact that all the councils after Ephesus were not really ecumenical at all, although certainly Orthodox?

This hesitation on your behalf to accept their ecumenicity is probably the current situation or reaction of your hiearchs and the delay to an official proclamation of being united in one Faith. The ball is in your park. Play ball or continue to forfeit the ecumenical value of our councils which are your councils as well.

Well, again, this can also be seen from our perspective. Your hesitation to recognise the fact that all councils after Ephesus really weren't ecumenical, and thus to agree with us that there were Three Sacred, Holy, and Ecumenical Councils, is the reason for the delay on an official proclamation of being united in one faith. The ball may have been on our side of the court, but we just swatted it back to you. What are you gonna do?

We are truly blessed that the ecumenical dialogue between our Churches is being run by people less stubborn than you and I. :p