www.byzcath.org Forums Faith & Christian Life Faith & Theology Infallibility of the Councils

Maybe we Orthodox are asking the question. "Is there a need to call an Ecumenical Council?"
In the past Ecumenical Councils dealt with issues of doctrine and dogma such as the two natures of Christ etc. There is no doctrinal issue that needs addressing at the moment.
Issues of church order can be dealt with by local councils.

I think an Ecumenical Council would be very helpful in bringing the Orthodox Church together.

Sure this can be accomplished on a local level, but again, how long will this take? How much more can we put it of?

We need a Pan Orthodox synod to deal with among other things:

The Old Calendarist issue/churches
The Macedonian Church
The jurisdictional soup in the U.S.
The scandalous situation in Ukraine
How to receive converts
Who will lead our ecumenical efforts

I'm sure there are other things I'm not thinking of, but those in and of themselves are serious enough. What is clear to me is that:

The rivalry and rift between Constantinople and Moscow hinders resolving the above and drives us perilously close to further fracturing along national/ethnic lines.

We need to figure out how to resolve our differences with the Apostolic See of Rome.

How about calling an ecumenical council to define what an ecumenical council is? If people are even disagree on the nature of the ecumenical council, there won't be any more ecumenical council, or it will bring schism instead because one part of the church will not regard it as ecumenical and the other as ecumenical.

We need an ORTHODOX council. That is a council at which only Orthodox Bishops will take part it, for if we are to talk of Unity with West, we need to first insure the unity within our own community.

However unity with the West in my opinion is an impossibility until Rome repudiates Papal infallibility and supremacy.

I agree and disagree.

I agree as I said we need a Pan Orthodox Synod, and optimally this would precede discussions with other groups. My feeling about the likelihood of this synod happening however leads me to believe this shouldn't be a contingency to discussions regarding reconciliation.

I do however think there is a common strand in all of this. Fr. Hopko in a talk given to members of the Roman Catholic diocese of Youngstown discussed what is required of the Orthodox to achieve unity with the West. To paraphrase, I believe he said the primary requirement is simply the desire for unity itself, and he goes on to lament how we lack this. I would agree with that assessment, and I feel the lack of desire for unity and absence of mourning that we don't have it, aren't limited to the arena of our relations to the west. I think this fundamental disinterest in unity is actually a mindset that not only affects our relations with others, but poisons our own internal relations as well. It affects us in our own being because we become accustomed to and accepting of schism and disunity as part of the status quo. It's like we give up on a critical piece of the Gospel message.

The talk I'm referencing is here. http://www.doy.org/viewpast.asp?ID=2027


Repudiate is a strong word. I don't personally feel that either side needs to renounce its past, in fact I think this would be the quickest way to end discussions. Rather, I think both sides need to work together to find a common understanding for how primacy is exercised within the church as a whole, how the universal church is governed and how dogma is defined (to go back to the thread topic).

Alexandr,

Are you serious? I just want to verify...

Gordo

The Russian Czar was the Orthodox Emperor from 1453 to 1918, and as such, had all the rights of St Constantine, Theodosius or Michael. The question of whether a non monarch, such as Mr Putin has the same rights, being as he has not been anointed as were the Czars and Emperors, is open to speculation and debate. There are no anointed Orthodox Kings or Emperors left alive, and Mr Putin is the only Orthodox head of state that comes to mind, with the possible exception of Bulgaria. It is my belief that it would be preferable to await the return of the God Anointed Orthodox Czar to the Throne than to have a Council called by a secular authority, however Orthodox they may be.

But all this is really moot because there exists no pressing dogmatic need for an Eighth Ecumenical Council. What is needed is a Pan Orthodox Council to settle once and for all the vexing non Dogmatic issues present in the Church today.

Alexandr

Is there any non-Russian evidence for your statement that "the Eagle transferred to Moscow"?

The Roman emperor in Constantinople called councils as head of the Roman empire--the then known world. This empire encompassed all Christians at the time.

The Russian czar's rule and authority did not stetch west of the Russian border.

I'm uncomfortable with the notion that the Eagle transferred to Moscow. Then again, I'm a Classicist, and while the 'senior ruler' status certainly passed to Moscow, the eagles and the rights and privileges of the Roman Empire, of which the Byzantine Empire was a direct descent, do not clearly pass to Moscow as the Muscovite Ruler was clearly NOT a descendant of Rome either culturally or otherwise.

The Tsars of Russia and the 'Holy Roman Emperors' were both in no way legitimate descendants of the Roman Empire.

The rights and privileges of the Roman Emperors ended with the last Roman Emperor - St Constantine the Ethnomartyr.

Concerning Blessed Constantine XI:

http://rumkatkilise.org/statusconstantineXI.htm

deleted

Alexis

Well you are partially correct, in that during the period commonly referred to as the Dark Ages, the Eastern Roman Empire encompassed the vast majority of the world's Christians. But after the beginning of the 10th century up to the fall in the middle of the 15th, there were many Christian States in Europe and Abroad having nothing to do with Constantinople, except to occasionally swing by for some recreational pillaging and looting. Once Constantinople fell, you will find very few written sources in the West about anything going on in the East, so naturally most written sources are of Slavic origin.

In 1453, Constantinople fell to the Turks, and the Ottoman Empire replaced the Byzantine, leaving Muscovite Russia as the only independent Orthodox realm. As the heir of what was once a global Christian empire, Muscovy assumed a role that transcended its borders. Churchmen rushed to find ways to enhance its prestige so that it could be worthy of its new position and to justify greater power for the ruler so that he could preserve Orthodoxy from further harm. To establish a direct inheritance, Ivan married Sofiia Palaeologus (b. ca. 1450), the niece of the last Byzantine emperor, and adopted the liturgical court ceremonies and two-headed eagle of the fallen empire, as well as the titles of tsar and autocrat. St. Andrew, the Apostle, had originally brought Christianity to East Slavic lands. Russian regalia, such as the Cap of Monomakh belonged to the 10th-century Byzantine emperor, Constantine Monomachus; Muscovy was the Third Rome (following the original and Constantinople) and was destined to unite all Christian realms under its sway. The Russian church strove to replicate the Byzantine ideal of a wealthy and influential church ruling in partnership with a divinely appointed, all-powerful monarch who could protect its interests.

In 1547, when Metropolitan Makarii (1482-1585), the head of the Orthodox Church in Russia, crowned the next Muscovite ruler, Ivan IV, (r. 1533-84), the transition was put on public display. Using the title of tsar for the first time, the awe-inspiring coronation ceremonies enforced the fact that Ivan possessed a divine mandate to rule, that his will was God's will, and that he headed the only true Christian realm. Also exhibiting links with the Roman emperors, Ivan justifiably claimed dynastic as well as religious superiority over all other European monarchs.

[Linked Image]



Alexandr

If we believe in the bible that their is only one true Church and that Church would be guided by the Holy Spirit, then you have to conclude that the power of Infallibility ( authority ) the Keys to the Kingdom was given to one person ( Matthew 16:19 and Matthew 28:18-20 ). The reason is if you say all the successor to the Apostles have that power, then the Church would not have broken up in 1054 given that all are guided by the Holy Spirit and would have been of one mind, So we are left with only one concussion that only Peter�s successor has the power to regard a Council Infallible with his blessing (not that he has to attend).

Definition: of Infallible in my statement

exemption from error due to the promise given to the church to be lead by the Holy Spirit, Matthew 28:18-20.