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

ChristTeen - I'm with ya'. I think you make perfect sense here.

Eric, the Orthodox

Admin said:

a. an interesting point about that council - I had forgotten about that incident

b. what practical difference is there to you about the term "ecumenical"? If a council led by the Pope promulgates some definition of doctrine and this has no counterpart in the eastern tradition then I believe (correct me if I'm wrong) that you as an Eastern Catholic are bound to believe it - as are all other Catholics. So what is the difference between one of these councils (e.g., Vatican II) and an "ecumenical" council as far as Catholics are concerned?

DJS wrote:

I was Roman Catholic and converted to Orthodoxy. I have not lost much of my "legalistic" (read I have my brain engaged) thinking. I get the same feedback from my Orthodox peers. I do believe that Rome can be TOO legalistic/scholastic. There comes a point where you can't do theology just by logic (and I think I sometimes see this tendency in the West). On the other hand Easterners sometimes act as though if you engage your brain and make common sense observations/questions that are based on reason then they quickly throw the old "you're being LEGALISTIC!" thing at you. [Sorry to all the Eastern Catholics here - this has been some of my experience in Orthodoxy .... maybe it doesn't apply to you - I actually don't know].

Lak ya Mor Ephrem! Long time no see!

I do not know of any canons on how it must be run. As you know, in the past, usually a Bishop would request from the Emperor to call a council - in fact, the Council of Chalcedon was supposed to be held in 450, but the Emperor refused. His son is the one who permitted it in 451. Nowadays, I would presume that the Pope/Patriarch that wants the council would send word to the other Patriarchs requesting the council and then suggest a possible date. There would probably be one or two churches that would refuse to attend - if the topic was unification of Oriental and Eastern union, for example. Then, when those who choose to attend convene, it would be like any modern "summit"...except with the presence of the Holy Spirit. My guess is that if we were to have one for that issue in particular, it would be called by Patriarch Bartholomew and Pope Shenouda, but that it wouldn't be held in Constantinopole or Egypt, but probably in Greece or Russia, or maybe even the U.K.

How it's run depends on who dominates the talks... lol (I could guess who'd do that too... lol)

Alex...it wasn't St. Dioscorus who went about beating people, it was actually him, according to the records, that had his beard pulled out, and was even slapped by the Empress! lol
but ST. Shenoute the Archmandrite also kickboxed Nestorius! lol That's why you DON'T GET EGYPTIANS UPSET!

lol

Peace and grace to all.

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

Selam A Copt,

Yes, I think your description is accurate. But what about the part that the participants in the Ecumenical Council should undergo extensive periods of fasting and prayer (such as they did leading up to Nicea) before they ever begin the conference? Of course the Holy Spirit will be present, but don't you listen to the Holy Spirit better when your mind is clear (from fasting)?

God Bless

Dear Minas the Copt,

Peace!

But did not Mar Dioscoros beat up Flavian of Constantinople?

We still venerate the icon of St Nicholas that depict the scene at the Council immediately following his "slugfest" in which Arius was the loser . . .

The bishops at the first Council removed his Bishop's Askeem and Gospel from him to punish him for "behaviour unbecoming a bishop" (they would say otherwise if they met some of our hierarchs today . . . God bless Vladyko! )

At that moment Christ our Lord appeared on one side of St Nicholas and His Mother on the other side, each holding a Gospel and his bishop's mantle respectively.

There is a miraculous icon with this scene in Kyiv's St Sophia Cathedral known as "St Nicholas the Drenched."

A boy who had fallen into the river was miraculously rescued by St Nicholas and his parents found him in the Cathedral sleeping on the altar before his icon. The icon and the boy were completely dripping with water.

Alex

Dear Eric,

You are an ex-Catholic? May I call you "Eric the Ex?" No? O.K., I won't . . .

As an Eastern Catholic, I do notice converts from RCism to us or the Orthodox bringing some of their legalism with them.

The West is much more disciplined and organized than we "Easy Easterners" ever will be.

We can use a dose of your legalism sometimes I think.

This is seen most readily in Western calendars of saints and how they compare with Eastern ones.

The Western entries won't only give you the saint's name and place of death, but also often the street name . . .

You are O.K. and we are privileged to have you here.

Who knows? You might just wind up an Eastern Catholic and so have the "best of both worlds."

Kidding, kidding . . .

Alex

Dear Christ-teen,

Aha . . . just that the Eastern Orthodox are not schismatics, we are done calling them that a long time ago.

The SSPX isn't the same thing - they really ARE in schism from their own Patriarch.

The Eastern Orthodox are in full communion with their respective Patriarchs and Bishops, beginning with Apostolic times.

The split is a matter that is conducted "at the top" between Patriarchs and hopefully it will be resolved in God's good time.

As Orthodox AND Catholics (or so we say ), the Seven Ecumenical Councils are a part of our canonical and theological Particular heritage.

And I have yet to come across ONE thing that the other 14 RC councils taught that we do not already believe OR that doesn't apply to us owing to our respective and venerable Particular Church traditions.

That goes for Papal Jurisdiction too - our Patriarchs govern us themselves.

And for Papal infallibility - the two doctrines proclaimed were done so after consulting with the worldwide Church. Their pith and substance is already accepted by our Eastern Churches since Apostolic times.

Papal Infallibility is something we believe occurs when a Pope, together with other Patriarchs and Bishops, assembled at an Ecumenical Council, sign its resolutions and canons to be received by the entire Church on matters of faith and morals.

So the 14 councils really don't apply to us with our Particular theologies, ecclesiologies and generally unique Eastern ways of looking at things.

Alex

Again, to be terribly pedantic , this is NOT what Vatican I proclaimed in "Pastor Aeternus" that the Pope can act alone outside of a Council by "merit" of his "charism" This is alien to the Orthodox Eastern Church. Paraphrasing James Carville, "it is the Papal Claims, stupid"

Dear Aklie, without a doubt, if those who call it and those who attend do not approach in reverence and humility before the Lord, then the whole church should be fasting for that period. :-)
Thanks for clarifying.

Salaam w'ne3ma. (peace and grace)
Aghaby,
wak-wak
amen, maranatha!

Dear Iskander (Alexander in Arabic),

There is a lot of controversy about whether or not "Our teacher Dioscorus" (his title in the Coptic Church) did any beating up. I have been doing some extensive reading on him lately, and all I have been able to find so far, is that at the 2nd council of Ephesus (or as you would call it, the "Robber Council"), he may have permitted violence, and some speculate that he himself committed violence. There is only one letter that speaks of Dioscorus, and he's described as meek and gentle. So we're not positive, but the fact that he was able to keep the heart of the Egyptians during that great split says something about him... lol either way, i think he is the BOMB! LOL

Thanks for that story about St. Nicholas though, I have never heard that one before!

Peace and grace to you!
Aghaby.
Amen, maranatha!

Dear Copt,

I would never use the term "Robber Synod." I'm too ecumenical for that . Plus, I think it is an inaccurate title anyway.

Interestingly enough, OUR teacher Mar Dioscoros was never condemned for heresy of any kind by the other Council.

He was censured for his behaviour (and I guess everyone assumed it implied violent behaviour) but he was never considered a heretic.

He was, after all, the nephew of St Cyril of Alexandria and strictly kept to his uncle's Christological phraseology.

His "violence" would have no bearing on his sanctity, given the case of St Nicholas and the fact that theological disputes often ended in fisticuffs in those days anyway.

They sometimes end that way here on the Forum too . . . .

So I wouldn't be surprised, really.

And Pope Saint Pius X, when he was a young priest, once heard someone swear terribly after Mass one Sunday morning.

He jumped on the man in a fit of anger and knocked him out with one punch. He was an amateur boxer, you see . . .

The "Devil's Advocate" opposing his canonization at the time related the incident.

The bishops thought about it and then said, "And?"

Finally, is there a place I could purchase a small icon or representation of St Severus of Antioch?

Alex

Dear Marshall,

You began this interesting thread with ". . .As an Anglican . . .I'm confused on the issue of Authority."

But then, as an Anglican, you would be, no?

I had to get that in, just had to . . .

Alex

Dear Brian,

Yes, you are right - that's not what was proclaimed.

But that is exactly my point.

We Eastern Catholics with our Particular Churches and theological perspectives have OUR OWN view on these issues and frame the papacy according to it.

Now, in terms of the pope proclaiming something and we having to accept it, that would be an issue only if it is something we don't already know about and practice. And that hasn't happened yet, in my view.

We are not obligated to accept RC terminology about things such as the Immaculate Conception and so on.

As for the papal doctrines, we have always accepted the Pope as the First among Equals.

We have always believed that the Pope CAN intervene in Eastern Church affairs when this is warranted - and St John Chrysostom was grateful for that, as were the defenders of the icons.

But our Patriarchs provide us with immediate and daily governance. The celibacy et al. thing in North America is really about a disagreement over jurisdiction and who calls the complete shots here rather than within the actual territory of a Patriarch "back home."

And we've always believed that the Pope of Rome can infallibly affirm doctrine that the Church has always believed or that is part of a development of doctrine that is legitimate and confirmed by the asset of the world-wide Church, normally and ideally set forth within the context of an Ecumenical Council.

What Vatican I said was specific to its day and age. It is not the last word. Show me an RC theologian or bishop or Pope, for that matter, who says it is.

Alex

Alex and Brian,

What Vatican said:

It speaks directly to all of these conciliar means of discernment; it directly rules out the idea that the a promise of infallibility is a promise to receive or promulgate new doctrine, rahter than one to safeguard the traditional deposit of faith. What claims are you folks reading that I am missing?