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

I ommitted the definitions on purpose because I am not concerned about how the definitions are used CURRENTLY (ie after the western definitions of this term became predominate). I was merely pointing out the ETYMOLOGY of the word, which refers to its historical definition, and thus what it meant AT THE TIME that those councils were called.

anastasios

Why no more Orthodox Oecumenical Councils?

First,just because from the historical point of view all the VII Oecumenical Councils were convoked by Byzantine Emperors (Basileis ton Romeon), not by the Pope or the Patriarch of Constantinople, and there are no more emperors at the Bosforos, Constantinople (Istambul) is not the Queen City (Basilevousa)anymore. And second, because Russian Patriarchate, and probably other Orthodox Churches, will never recognize the capacity of the Oecumenical Patriarch (considered traditionally by modern Greeks and Othoman Sultans as the heir of the political role of the emperor as head of the Christian of the Othoman Empire)to convoke such Council. Oecumenical, like in the title of the Patriarch of Constantinople, does not mean exactly "universal" but rather "of the whole Empire". Well Christian Roman Empire does not exist any more.

Dear Francisco,

There are difficulties in the Orthodox world with respect to convoking an Ecumenical Council to be sure.

But while Emperors did play a role in this, that was then and this is now.

There is no reason why the Orthodox could not come together for an Ecumenical Council, even without an Emperor convening it.

At the same time, and as Anastasios the Grammarian has said (you better be careful - he's a seminarian now!) the Orthodox world had many local synods since the last Ecumenical Councils, whose decisions were often received by worldwide Orthodoxy.

We should not fall into the trap of thinking of local synods as having an impact on the local church that convened it alone.

I used to do that a lot.

That led me to appreciate the Orthodox Church much more.

I still have some trouble relating to some of the converts to Orthodoxy here.

But I'm working on what some consider to be a character flaw in me

Alex

Hi Alex,
I know you have a problem with me Mr. Troublemaker. lol. Your excuse is that I am a convert and converts don't know squat. This is your problem. Even though I was not raised Orthodox, I do reclaim what was mine originally and authentic. The artificial unions & communions with Rome are but that.

As for invoking an Eighth Ecumenical Council, the Orthodox Church is not ready for one and neither is Rome. Rome must return to Orthodoxy. If not we shall just wait until Judgment Day. To speak of invoking an Eight Ecumenical Council is absurd without Rome returning back home like the Prodigal Son. That's my $.02 cents for the day, Big Guy.

Dear Rum,

Number one, "Big Guy" is a term I use and semi-mocking with it isn't nice.

Number two, I hope I'm not a troublemaker (can we go back to you just calling me heretical?), but what's life without a little provocation? I know you're secure enough in your beliefs to take it.

Number three, there are some converts I just can't figure out. You are definitely not one of them. Period.

Finally, you do make an excellent point about the Ecumenical Councils, Big Guy.

In actual point of fact, Orthodoxy has been in long prep-time for just such an 8th Council even without the Pope.

Your view that a council should include the Pope, following reunion of the Churches, is excellent and is probably what best expresses the mind of the once undivided Church.

And if you are going to be so sensitive that I'll pick on somebody else. Nik perhaps . . .

Alex

Dear RUM O:

Rome will not agree to hold an 8th Ecumenical Council because she just did about 1,133 years ago in 869 A.D. at Constantinople, under Pope Adrian II and Emperor Basil.

Unless Orthodoxy comes back home to the Catholic Church!

AmdG

AmdG,

Are you aware that we Byzantine Catholics recognize Seven Councils as fully Ecumenical and consider the remaining fourteen Councils as "General Councils in the West"?

The whole idea of counting 21 Councils as Ecumenical is a Western one based upon the incorrect assumption that the theology of the Latin Church is the normative theology of the Catholic Church against which Byzantine and other theologies are measured.

I read somewhere that Rome and the Orthodox had agreed upon an eighth ecumenical council sometime around 871, but that some three hundred years later, the Pope of the time overturned that council in favour of naming the 869 council ecumenical, even though the Pope during 869 condemned that one. Anyone know what I'm talking about and want to set me straight on the history? I'll try to find where I read that...

Dear Qathuliqa,

You are absolutely right and Meyendorff discusses that issue more than once in his works.

The problem is that since the 8th Council was a "union Council" where Rome affirmed the leaving out of the Filioque and then later put it back in, the Orthodox no longer recognize it as it no longer reflects the actual situation with respect to Rome.

Meyendorff suggested that if Rome and Orthodoxy ever held a "union council" in the future, both sides could begin by recognizing the council you mention as the 8th Ecumenical Council and then itself as the 9th Council.

Cool or what?

Alex

Dear Administrator,

While I don't really know if Amado is aware of that, I do know that my (Ukrainian Catholic) parish priest isn't FOR SURE!

And he's a canon lawyer, trained at the "Propaganda" in Rome. He is sure he knows everything .

What can you expect from someone with a doctorate from a Catholic institute called "Propaganda?"

I'm only suggesting that if you are going to lunge at Latins on the 21 Councils thingy, keep yourself guarded against other Byzantines who may try to jump you from behind on the very same matter.

I think you Ruthenians are wonderful, wonderful . . . I've even positioned my computer to face East whenever I post here!

But please have mercy on people like me who are liable to getting beaten about the calves and ankles for being, how shall I say, "Too Orthodox in communion with Rome?"

Alex

Dear Admin:

I have been following the on-going exchanges on another thread re the ecumenicity of the later 14 Councils.

As I gather from the discussions among the Eastern Catholics (to which the question was primarily directed at), not all are in accord.

The Byzantine Catholics (presumably all the Ruthenians, spearheaded by your esteemed self) declares the non-ecumenicity of the later 14 Councils and concedes them only to be "General Councils of the West," abetted in part by a disputable presumption that Pope Paul VI was rumored to have expressed the same opinion.

While the Ukrainian Catholics, represented by Alex, seem to favor their ecumenicity.

At any rate, my previous post was in jovial response to Rum O's repeated jabs at the RCC as the "prodigal son" in this estrangement of East and West. Said RUM O:

AmdG

AmdG,

The whole thing is confusing, isn�t it?

I think that the reason that many Byzantine-Ukrainian Catholics hold the Latin view is that they are still recovering from the communist days in which it was illegal to be Greek Catholic. That gave many of our people a tendency to adopt the Latin approach to everything as normative and the Byzantine approach as acceptable only when it agreed perfectly with the Latin approach. This is part of the reason that Pope John Paul II has told us to rediscover and renew our Orthodox roots.

In one of the threads on this topic I gave the references by Pope Paul VI and Cardinal Willibrands. They should be able to be found in any Catholic library.

As for Rum, I suspect that he really believes that a council would not really be ecumenical unless the Successor of Peter was present.

Admin

Very cool, Alex. But why not include us in the talks, have a fourth ecumenical council, and get everything solved in one shot?

Thanks for confirming my understanding of the "Eighth Ecumenical Council" business.

Dear Qathuliqa,

Actually, if such a Council were held, one topic could be the numbering of the Ecumenical Councils acknowledged as such by the entire Church.

If, for example only, the Oriental Churches were to say, "To heck with it, we are recognizing the next nine Councils as ecumenical, including this one," then those Councils would surely be "ecumenical" on the basis of that recognition.

It doesn't mean they add anything to your Churches' understanding of theology et al.

And it doesn't mean you should liturgically celebrate them.

But it could mean that a new measure of Orthodoxy based on conciliar theology is established and agreeable to all.

By the act of acknowledging them in an Ecumenical Council, the Oriental Churches "make" them ecumenical for themselves.

I'd love to be a Patriarch, just like you, Catholicos!

Alex

I can just see the news report:

�Shep, I�m here in Nicea where leaders of the Catholic, Eastern Orthodox and Oriental Orthodox Churches have gathered to meet in an ecumenical council to resolve the remaining issues separating them from full communion. They have decided to meet here in Nicea since it was the site of the First Ecumenical Council in the year 323. These three Churches have not met together in solemn conclave since after the Third Ecumenical Council in 431 when the Oriental Orthodox stopped coming to these gatherings and then, after 1054, the Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox Churches lost communion after the papal legate got into an argument with the Patriarch of Constantinople and got into a fist fight.

The pre-negotiators have been at it for several weeks now but have gotten bogged down in what to call this council. Some Catholics wish to call it the �Twenty-Second Ecumenical Council� while other Catholics adamantly state that it is only the �Eighth Ecumenical Council�. Most Orthodox insist that it can must be called the �Eighth Ecumenical Council� but there is a small number who insist that it is really the �Ninth Ecumenical Council�. The Oriental Orthodox, for their part, are campaigning that it be called the �Fourth Ecumenical Council�. The whole matter is expected to come to a head tomorrow when Pope John Paul II and all of the Catholic, Orthodox, Oriental Orthodox and Assyrian Patriarchs arrive to formally convene this Ecumenical Council. According the pre-negotiated format the Pope will speak to the assembled Church first and then each patriarch will speak according to the ancient ranking. It is rumored that Patriarch Bartholomew of Constantinople will champion the idea presented last week by the Byzantine Catholic Patriarch of Ukraine that the council table the discussion of what number council this is in favor of officially naming it �The Ecumenical Council of Reunion�. Some Roman Catholic cardinals are pushing Pope John Paul II to reject this suggestion by the Ukrainian Catholic patriarch as getting the council members to agree to the tile �Twenty-Second Ecumenical Council� would give the Latin Church additional weight in its arguments.

This is Bret Bear with Fox News in Nicea. Back to you, Shep. :p