www.byzcath.org Forums News & Events Church News Journey begins toward convening of pan-Orthodox synod

...just poking a little fun, Father!

Now, back to our regularly scheduled discussion....

As was I! And yes, we'd better stay on topic.

Fr David

At the time the agenda was created at Constantinople's Chambesy Centre in the 1970s many of the Churches were under the heel of Communist and Socialist regimes. It was expected that their participation in the proposed Great and Holy Council (possibly to be accepted as the 8th Ecumenical) would be fairly minimal and their delegates wouls be selected and controlled by their home governments.

Now the situation is much different. The once unhappy situation of Russia and Serbia and Bulgaria has been reversed. These are now Churches bouncing with a new vitality and Russia in particular has increased its membership by millions of faithful, tens of thousands of churches and priests and hundreds of bishops.

There is a possibility that Russia will mount a strong challenge at the Council to the ranking of the Churches in the diptychs. I would not expect it to go for first place, supplanting Constantinople, but I wouldn't be surprised if it tries for second place, pushing Alexandria down to 3rd place.

Moscow will also want to closely examine the whole question of "primacy" in Orthodoxy. Constantinople has made this inevitable since it promoted it so strongly in Ravenna in 2007 at the 10th meeting of the Joint International Commission for the Theological Dialogue between the Orthodox Church and the Roman Catholic Church. Two years earlier at the 9th meeting in Belgrade it was also pushing the primacy issue.

Russia will also place the matter of the Bp Basil Osborne affair on the agenda. This will involve hard decisions being adopted about the scope of Constantinople's claimed right of "eccliton" in the modern world.

All in all, the Council promises to cause utter chaos among the Orthodox Churches. This is the reason Fr Justin Popovic wrote so strongly against calling this Council. It will serve to introduce major tensions and even schism into the Church. I agree with Fr Justin. Let sleeping dogs lie. We don't need this Council.

People in the New World get upset with the idea of abandoning the proposed Council. They expect it to resolve the administrative overlapping in America. It may and it may not. The American Church constitutes less than 1% of global Orthodoxy. Its problems simply do not need the convocation of an Ecumenical Council. They can be handled on a much lower level.

Why do we need this Council?


We have convened Great Councils in the past ONLY in response to a serious heresy threatening the Church - Arianism, Nestorianism, Iconoclasm, etc. Our Churches have not faced any such major heresies since the last Council in 787 AD. Yes, there have been minor heresies (e.g., the early 20th century "Nameworshipping" heresy among some of the Russians) but these have not affected the whole Church and were able to be dealt with successfully on a local level.

And there is another point which would indicate the perils of calling a Council without any greatly pressing need - we only need look at Vatican II and its not always happy results. Aggiornamento has not been without its down side. "Better to let sleeping dogs lie" as they say. The Holy Spirit has brought us to where we are today. That is enough for us.

Let us take our warning from the lament of Pope Benedict as to the disastrous impact of Vatican II on his own Church, particularly on its liturgy and the ripple effect which liturgical collapse (the Pope's words) has caused on all other aspects of his Church's life:


"I am convinced that the ecclesial crisis in which we find ourselves
today depends in great part on the collapse of the liturgy.”


"In its practical materialization, liturgical reform has moved further
away from this origin. The result was not re-animation but devastation.
Pope Benedict XVI
~~~~~~

Well, there you are... thoughts from a nobody monk in Middle Earth.

Father Bless!


I don't understand. If a bishop is a bishop is a bishop as I've read over and over again by Orthodox posters, from the titular bishop of Pergamon to the practically Papal Patriarch of Moscow*, then why fight over Primacy? What's the difference besides being last in line in the procession and the different head gear?

*(I wish it was Pavel of Patagonia so I could continue with the alliteration! )


It seems to me that there were great heresies threatening the Orthodox Church in the 20th Century. It seems that Communism swallowed practically every Orthodox stronghold in the world except Greece.

Your unworthy son,

Dr. Eric

What is being convened by the Orthodox (for the past 50 years): is it a Pan-Orthodox Synod or an Ecumenical Council?

The Catholic Church convenes every 2 years a World Synod of Bishops, the latest last year (2008) where EP Barthlomew was invited as a speaker. The next will be next year in 2010.

Amado

Father sometimes I really wonder!
Stephanos I

My own personal view is that it would not be an ecumenical council. In fact, I am not sure that it is even possible to have an ecumenical council. Historically, the ecumenical councils depended on the byzantine empire. Since there is no empire, there is nothing "ecumenical." We can still have councils and synods and we can even say that certain councils and synods have the same authority as the ecumenical councils. But, whether we can have a council in the precise way that we had ancient ecumenical councils is unclear.

Also, (just my personal opinion and this is pure speculation), I think that it is possible that God has limited the number of councils to seven, since seven is the numerical symbol for completeness and perfection. The ancient councils defined what was crucial for all Christians believe, namely the Holy Trinity and the truth about Jesus Christ. Later councils have tended to deal more with secondary (though still important) matters.

Joe

That is very cool that you can trace your family back to the Dutch settlers! How do you find it that you are now immersed in Russian culture, dear Father, and would you want it any other way?


LOL! Yes, I too have often wondered about our brother, Crule's, photo!!!

Btw, New York City's old name was "New Amsterdam," thus founded by the Dutch in 1625.

It was remaned "New York" by the English in 1664, in honor of the Duke of York and Albany, when it conquered the area.

Amado

It must have been important, because the Fathers of the Ecumenical Councils saw fit to raise Constantinople in primacy, and Rome saw fit to protest and refuse to recognize it for nearly a millenium: until the Crusaders installed a Latin on the EP's throne. I knew a Ukrainian in the seminary at the Vatican who chaffed about the Greeks coming first at services, before the Ukrainians, and the Ukrainians are pestering the Vatican to elevate their primate to patriarch, so they must think something of it.

As for the Orthodox, just because we acknowledge that the EP and the auxilary bishop of the Dardanelles, in Chicago are both equally bishops, no one is deluded into thinking that they are the same.

And they are were now?

And, where do you reckon the Council of Trullo?

I don't know, though my understanding is that it is regarded as ecumenical in authority. I should say that I don't have a strong opinion on this matter.

Joe

The Double Council also has ecumenical status.

Fr. Serge

That makes 8.

The Council in Trullo is called the 5th/6th Council by the Orthodox because it provides canons which they both lacked, those Councils being essentially concerned with dogmatic matters. Therefore, it is considered the completion of those two Ecumenical Councils, not a Council of its own. Hence the number Seven still holds.

Fr David Straut