www.byzcath.org Forums Faith & Christian Life The Christian East & West Why no more Orthodox Ecumenical Councils?

This is for our Orthodox brethren. I'm Anglican and therefore totally confused on the issue of authority. :-) I'm trying to sort these issues out. Bear with me.

Why hasn't the Orthodox Church had any Ecumenical Councils since the schism? Does this mean that the East has an implicit recognition that Rome is required for ecumenicity with respect to conciliar decisions?

I've appreciated all the helpful discussion on the topic of Ecumenical Councils. Thank you.

curious in Christ,
Marshall

The Orthodox Church has seriously considered a new Ecumenical Council. However, the Holy Synod has attached the precondition that the Ecumencial Patriarch must contract for room rates under $79 (on the European plan, with breakfast). Las Vegas and Disney World are being looked into, but it does not appear we can find a convention site that meets the Synod's requirements.

Axios

[ 09-12-2002: Message edited by: Axios ]

Many Orthodox consider the Councils of 1347-1351 (the hesychast councils) as ecumenical. The council of Blachernae in 1285, which destroyed the filioque argument but which curiously not many RC's even know about, while not considered ecumenical, is considered the authoratative teaching body on the filioque.

There were pan-Orthodox synods in the middle ages and in the 19th century, and one in 1922, which unfortunately divided some of the Church over the calendar.

Ecumenical simply means "of the empire" so for the Orthodox to stop having ecumenical councils and instead only have Pan-Orthodox synods is no big surprise.

In Christ,

anastasios

Axios is closer to the truth than might at first be thought (since he was joking). There have indeed been pushes for an Ecumenical Council through the 20th century, and not a few preperational councils were held to decide various things (e.g., what issues would be discussed). The stumbling block is twofold, 1. Orthodoxy is in a state of disarray, and 2. The Ecumenical Patriarch is playing political games (making "power moves") in an attempt to manipulate the results of any "Ecumenical Council" that might take place. The concept of a new Ecumenical Council while not in communion with Rome, then, is not an impossibility.

And as others have mentioned, there have been a number of Councils that the Orthodox Church considers binding or authoritative. Bishop Kallistos, for instance, mentions various documents/councils after the 7th Ecumenical Council that might be looked to for doctrinal reasons: http://www.fatheralexander.org/booklets/english/history_timothy_ware_2.htm

Humility?

Orthodoxy is in a state of disaray?

I find that a most interesting statement. Could you clarify for this recent convert exactly what you mean?

And if there was a council, would there possibly be a problem with the patriarchs deciding which of them should be the head of the council ("first among equals").

Just wondering out loud.

Brother Ed

Dear Marshall:

Catholicism defines Ecumenical Councils as:


There are three essential elements for a Council to be ecumenical:

--Convocation, which necessarily includes the power and the right to constitute the participation in that Council;

--Direction, or the presidency of the Council; and

--Confirmation of the acts of the Council.

In all the Ecumenical Councils, the above always pertained to the reigning Pope, although in certain Councils the Emperor did convoke the meeting upon the instigation of the Pope or his legates. (By the way, "ecumenical" does not mean "of the empire" as anastasios wants us to believe.)

Thus, the Pope having the requisite authority to convene an Ecumenical Council on his own, the Catholic Church, believing herself to be a universal Church, has convoked the 8th through the 21st Ecumenical Council (Vatican II), in addition to the first 7.

In all these 14 Ecumenical Councils, the Eastern bishops (i.e., Orthodox), through their Patriarchs and Metropolitans, have been formally invited to attend such Councils. (Eastern Catholic bishops have always attended, of course.)

That some attended and many did not should not diminish the ecumenicity of the legally convoked Ecumenical Councils.

Representatives of various Protestant churches, including the Anglicans, were invited, and attended, some of these Councils.

Without the Pope's headship, an Ecumenical Council cannot be convoked. The principle of "primus inter pares," or "the first among equals," originally referred to the Patriarch of Rome, as a take-off from the headship of Peter among the Apostles.

That's the predicament Eastern Orthodoxy is presently in.


AmdG

Amado,

Were any of the first Ecumenical Councils called by the Pope of Rome?

Can you list the "presidents" of each council as well as those persons who called them?

What if a laywoman called an Ecumenical Council?

These councils are important since Catholics and Orthodox got their Creed from them.

[ 09-13-2002: Message edited by: Joe T ]

In the Council of Chalcedon, the Pope had a "staring role" trying to unite both factions, monophisites and diplophisites. Unfortunately, the first group decided to reject the doctrines of the Council and broke communion with the universal Church.

I'd like to know about the councils of Florence and Lyon (of the latin church), the unity of the Universal Church was re-established for a short period of time, but it soon got broken again.

Remie,

In charity I tell you, I've already forgotten more of Church history than you will ever know, and each and every one of your posts is proof that a little knowledge is a very dangerous thing.

Dear jt:

These websites might be of help, although I have not found a suitable site for Vatican II (21st Ecumenical Council).

Also, please bear in mind that these websites are Roman Catholic.

http://www.piar.hu/councils/~index.htm
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/04423f.htm

AmdG

http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?book=Dictionary&va=ecumenical

Main Entry: ec�u�men�i�cal
Pronunciation: "e-ky&-'me-ni-k&l
Function: adjective
Etymology: Late Latin oecumenicus, from Late Greek oikoumenikos, from Greek oikoumenE the inhabited world, from feminine of oikoumenos, present passive particle of oikein to inhabit, from oikos house -- more at VICINITY
----

What we see here is that ecumenical is derived from the Greek "oikoumenikos" which meant inhabited world. You have to know a little about history and Greek culture to realize that what the Greeks considered to be inhabited was the East Roman (i.e. Byzantine) empire and the western empire which was considered part of the oikoumene despite its being dominated by the Franks (the west had the same idea pretty much; Charlemagne was only crowned emperor when Irene, who was considered illegitimate due to being a woman, was reigning in Constantinople, which meant that to the Franks there was no valid emperor of the Romans so Charlemagne took it upon himself.)


An ecumenical council was one that affected the whole empire (ie the whole "inhabited" world") and was under the presidency of the emperor, who had that right due to his being sacramentally anointed as emperor of the romans.

Later attempts of the Latins to claim ecumenical council status really only came after Trent; the Council of Florence in 1439 was convoked as the "eighth" council (meaning what is now considered the ecumenical councils numbered 8-15 were not considered ecumenical at the time). St. Robert Bellarmine was the first to make a list of councils that were "ecumenical." This was during the counterreformation, and the term was transformed into "worldwide" and lost its secular connection.

In Christ,

anastasios

anastasios:

You conveniently omitted its (ECUMENICAL)proffered meanings, to wit:




AmdG

Brother Ed

Before I say anything, I should state that I am a recent convert who is totally devoted to Metropolitan Philip as my bishop, am even more devoted to the the Orthodox Church, and have the highest degree of devotion to the the orthodox faith. I have no want to slight the Church that I love, and I have no wish to get involved in political discussions (and I must admit that my beloved Metro. Philip provides much material for discussion). While I don't like getting into political discussions, though (I leave that for those better capable of dealing with such issues), I do sometimes feel able to admit to the truth that we are in disarray as a Church.

Now, to clarify what I mean First, I do not mean by what I said that Orthodoxy is the wrong place to be at present. We are, IMO, in disarray, but we are no worse than we were in 50CE, or 350CE for that matter. There have always been times when the Church didn't have it all together administratively and in other "visible" ways. That isn't to say she has lost her orthodoxy or christocentric praxis, but such disarray can effect some of the more outward functioning of our beloved Orthodoxy.

The calling of an Ecumenical Council is one such issue that is effected by this. First, should the so-called "diaspora" be allowed to participate (and participate meaningfully) in an Ecumenical Council? Those who derive their power and support from the diaspora (E.g., Constantinople) have much to lose should this "diaspora" gain more power and more of a voice. Some would argue whether there is such a thing as a "diaspora" in the west. A dispersion, some would say, is not something that could describe those in America, who have no plans or even wishes to return to where they are from. They are not "in exile" or wanting to return to where their grand fathers and great grand fathers had come from.

There is also the problem that the majority of Orthodox Christians today live in countries who are only now rebuilding and recovering from the Communist governments they had been under. Russia's defensiveness shouldn't be looked at as being closedminded so much as scared to death of losing their members--again. The first time it was by murder, now they fear they will lose their flock through sheep-stealing. (I didn't say that was what was happening, only that that is what they fear)

Other countries, like America, Australia, New Zealand, Japan, etc. are just getting their feet on the ground, and while making positive steps, are largely more immature than they are willing to admit. (as an example, my own Church was recently granted autonomy, and yet we have no monasteries to speak of and very Few Ecclesiastical Schools as well). I do not say this to attack Orthodoxy in America, I think we are taking great strides forward, but it must be admitted--even if you disagree with the maturity issue--that administratively we have issues between various jursidictions in the above-mentioned countries. This doesn't really sound much different to me than a number of periods through Church history-- I am not trying to make it into the end of the world! I do think, though, that we need to recognize that we need to get our acts together. We musn't despair, but we shouldn't pretend that numerous bishops from numerous jurisdictions in the same area/city (as one example) is acceptable either.

There's also the problem that a number of Orthodox Churches are currently under attack by various other forces. Sometimes it's militant Islamic groups, sometimes it's Atheistic world-views (which have taken hold of as much as 1/3 of the population in some places in Europe). Much like in the time of the mid-fourth century, when Arian Emperors reigned and Athanasius was runnin' for his life, so now to is Orthodoxy outwardly in disarray. Similar to the situation in the fourth century, though, I think Orthodoxy is just as strong internally as it ever has been. This is not the worst time Orthodoxy has gone through, and I actually think that there is much to be optimistic about. Many of the problems that created our dark days are over in Russia/Eastern Europe, America and other westernized countries are growing and maturing, and overall Orthodoxy is getting stronger. Getting stronger should not be confused with having our house in order though.

I hope this post didn't sound too negative!

A previous post said the Pope had invited or initiated all the ecumenical councils. I know one of the first 7 (the 5th?) was convoked by an emperor AGAINST the wishes of the reigning Pope.