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

I wonder what Bill O'Reilly would have to say about all this on the Factor...

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

Administrator, why do you tease us so? We can only dream this to be one day a news report. But then again many dreams are only a prayer away.

Who cares what he has to say about anything? He would probably be against it because it is too "multi-cultural.'

What exactly is the big deal about saying the last 14 councils are ecumenical? What determines whether a council is ecumenical? Whatever that criteria is, that's what is important.

So how does one know a council is ecumenical? (If the answer is different from the one I just asked) how does one know the doctrinal decrees of a given council are binding on the whole church?

If one says "when the whole church receives it" then how do you know when this happened?

If the answer is any council approved by a Pope then why aren't the last 14 councils as binding as the first 7?

And isn't just one pope making a distinction between the first 7 councils and the later 14 ones stretching the point a bit? I mean he was only one pope and it wasn't exactly an ex-cathedra statement.

I'm TRYING to determine what you folks believe about these issues.

Eric, the former RC but now Orthodox.

Eric,

I understand your frustration. The discussion about the extent of the ecumenicity of a council is subject to many different considerations and many of these considerations fall into a gray area that has not been spoken to at a doctrinal level. One really needs to have a good grasp on Church history to put them into proper perspective. Let me try to answer your specific questions:

--What exactly is the big deal about saying the last 14 councils are ecumenical? --

The East was not represented at most of these councils and didn't receive them afterwards. Most of these councils addressed specific problems in the West that never arose in the East (like the Protestant Reformation). In contrast, the West was not at the first three or four councils They became ecumenical because the West later received them. Maybe at some future date the East will receive these fourteen but this has not yet happened.

Orthodoxy has had additional councils but, to its credit, has never had the arrogance to claim them as ecumenical because they were not attended by or received by the West and Orthodoxy knows that this is a criteria for a council to be considered ecumenical.

--What determines whether a council is ecumenical? Whatever that criteria is, that's what is important.--

A council becomes ecumenical when the decisions of the bishops who gathered in purposeful council have been ratified by the pope and received by the people.

--So how does one know a council is ecumenical? (If the answer is different from the one I just asked) how does one know the doctrinal decrees of a given council are binding on the whole church?--

In addition the above, these doctrinal decrees must be intended to be doctrinal decrees. If one reads the decisions of the fathers of the First Ecumenical Council, things like the agreement on the calculation of the date of Pascha were put into a "it seems best if" group while the important stuff (like the divinity of Christ and the condemnation of the theology of Arius) was considered doctrinal and "must be believed". But these teachings needed to be received by the West and fully embraced by the Church before this council became ecumenical.

--If one says "when the whole church receives it" then how do you know when this happened?--

This is a very good question and I don't have an easy answer. There is at least one council in the West that was considered to be ecumenical but had its decisions reversed by a future council. Roman Catholics will skip to the "when the pope says it is" but the pope at the time of that council agreed with the decisions while a later pope agreed with the clarifications given at a future councils.

--If the answer is any council approved by a Pope then why aren't the last 14 councils as binding as the first 7?--

Approval by the pope is just part of the equation. The other part is that they be received by the entire Church. The East has not received these 14 councils so that cannot qualify as ecumenical. This doesn't mean that the teachings proclaimed at these councils are not orthodox. It just means that these councils have not met the criteria for being ecumenical.

--And isn't just one pope making a distinction between the first 7 councils and the later 14 ones stretching the point a bit? I mean he was only one pope and it wasn't exactly an ex-cathedra statement.--

No. There is no definitive, doctrinal statement that these 14 councils are ecumenical. A study of history would show that the West considers them to be ecumenical because it considers its own theology to be normative and all encompassing. This is why Pope John Paul II is seeking an input of Light from the East.

Admin

I am sympathetic. Really. But I have precisely the same problem trying to find out an exact EO position on any number of issues. And this one might be a good example. What are the specific criteria in Orthodoxy? Test your criteria by ease showing how they apply or do not apply in the case of each of the councils discussed on this thread.

djs

PS In making such inquiries, I sometimes get the "legalistic latin" response. Hmmm.

Dear Administrator,

Father, may I make a joke in a so serious forum?, you say "that Pope John Paul II has told us to rediscover and renew our Orthodox roots", well if you rediscover and renew your orthodox roots you will probably find that the teaching of some Roman Catholic bishops in the World is not so "orthodox" and probably you wont be able to keep the sacramental communion with them. I can say that I am almost completely sure about the "orthodoxy" (="catholicity") of most Byzantine Catholic bishops and priests but I can not be so sure about the "catholicity" (="orthodoxy") of the teaching of some Roman Catholic priests and bishops. On September 8th a young priest in my village parish said "Mary and Josheph conceived the Savior of the World", Am I supposed to be in communion with such priest just because he belong to the Catholic Church? May I received holy communion from him after saying such heresy in his preach? Well, be careful about rediscovering and renewing your orthodox roots, you will find a lot of difficulties in your way. I Think that the Holy Father should also tell the Latins bishops to rediscover and renew thier orthodox roots. "Orthodoxy" is a great value in the Church, not just a privilege of Eastern Catholics. To be in communion with the Holy See that is not mean that you are orthodox (from the dogmatic point of view of the Catholic Church I mean). I wonder why the value of being "orthodox" of "proclaming rightly the word of Christ's truth" is more apreciated by Eastern Christians than Western?.That's pity, is not it? Yours in Christ, Francisco

Dear Francisco,

Thanks for your comments! Sadly, they are in many cases all too true. I know that there are those who wish to subvert the mission of the Church and spread false teachings. These types of people have always been with us and will be with us until the Second Coming. It is my opinion, however, that most of the problems the Church faces (and they are many) are the result of ignorance rather than malice.

I am saddened that the young priest taught heresy about the Conception of the Savior in the womb of Mary the Theotokos. It is my hope and prayer that he spoke through ignorance and that he does not reject the teaching of the Church. I hope you can introduce him to some other priests who can set him straight on this matter.

I do agree that there should be more of an emphasis on orthodox / Orthodox teaching in the Roman Catholic Church. Perhaps the current scandals will lead to this?

Thanks also for promoting me to the rank of presbyterate with your greeting �Father�. I am, however, just an uneducated layman in the Byzantine Catholic Church.

Prayers,

Admin

Francisco, any chance the young priest could have just accidentally said that? I remember once being at devotions to the Infant Jesus of Prague and the priest leading them accidentally said "Holy Infant Jesus of Prague, pray for us" instead of saying "have mercy on us". When it was pointed out to him later, be became very embarassed. I hope that is what happened with your priest too. Don

Well, I just said that what he was saying was an heresy I did not say that he is heretic or that he must be excomunicated. The problem is that nobody in the my parish seemed to realise that what he was saying was wrong. That is the real problem. If you tell a Latin priest, at least in my country, well father, that was wrong from the dogmatical or the liturgical point of view he will tell you "Well it does not really matter", or even worse "Do you think you are more intelligent or a better Christian than me?". The problem is that in the Latin church nobody seems to care about what is wrong and what is right. That's the point. They think that to be orthodox means just to accept the authority of the Pope. To be orthodox is much more difficult, a lot of love for Christ (the Truth) and his Church is needed. An orthodox is a humble person who seeks the truth in what more saint and more intelligent people (Church Fathers, Saints)or the whole Church (Oecumenal Councils)have said and does not believe only in his own capacities. But I wonder, Who will tell Roman Catholics (Latins) to rediscover or renew their orthodox roots?

Dear Francisco,

The priest's problem is that he also doesn't know his liturgical calendar.

I've come across another sacerdotal fool who thought the feast of the Nativity of Mary had to do with Christ's conception etc.

There is no reason why laity cannot approach the fellow afterwards and tell him about a few things.

Perhaps he was having an off Sunday . . .

As for St Joseph, I like the phrase, "He was the man whom God called 'father.'"

Alex

Dear and Esteemed Administrator,

You would make an excellent correspondent, Sir!

Actually, reading your conciliar report reminded me of the theme of James Bond in "Tomorrow Never Dies" where the media mogul and bad guy reported "Tomorrow's news today."

Would that your words prove prophetic and soon!

(All your other prophecies have been fulfilled!)

Alex

Hey Marshall,

I think, as an Orthodox Christian, that there are a few reasons...

Most of the issues facing most of the churches at the present are not dogmatic anymore, they are local issues dealing with each church. The problems of the Greek Orthodox usually do not apply to the Russians, the problem of the Copts do not usually apply to the Syrians etc... It's not the same type of thing we used too see. Presently, when a church sees something as a heresy, usually it is so obvious that churches will get together and issue a statement - but this does not require a huge gathering or any vote-taking. For example, the Orthodox have stood together to issue statements on things like abortion and euthanasia etc... and these were even signed by both families of Orthodox.

If the Oriental and Eastern Orthodox families formally reunite and lift the anathemas against each other, there is almost definitely going to be an ecumenical council for it, and it will be official. Bishops from every continent in the world will be required to get together, vote etc...

Hope that helps somewhat.

Question: since we haven't really had an ecumenical council in a long time (since the seventh or the third, depending on what side you take), how would we have one these days? Are there canons that govern how an ecumenical council is supposed to be run?

Dear Qathuliqa,

One would hope they would be run as smoothly as possible and without any more fisticuffs as happened at the Council of Chalcedon where some of your Oriental Orthodox people, like Mar Dioscoros, "lost it."

On the other hand, St Nicholas did punch-up Arius at the First Council.

I wonder if any bishops today are trained in kick-boxing?

Alex

Dear Admin,

But haven't the later 14 councils been accepted by the East (i.e. the Eastern Catholic Churches)? From a Catholic standpoint, what does it matter if the schismatics recognize these councils as ecumenical or not, it would seem that Catholicism only worry about the East in communion with them. Same thing from an Orthodox perspective: if their "general councils" come to be accepted by Roman Catholicism, and thus are then ecumenical, what about schismatic Westerners such as the SSPX? Why should Orthodoxy care what a bunch of schismatics think about their ecumenical councils? It doesn't make sense that councils would have to be accepted by schismatics as well, only the Church, where the fullness of Truth is found. Am I gravely mistaken?

ChristTeen287