www.byzcath.org Forums General Discussions Town Hall Will the first-ever Orthodox council occur this year?

Will the first-ever Orthodox council occur this year? We'll know soon.

By Phil Lawler | Catholic Culture | Jan 18, 2016

Since the Great Schism, the Roman Catholic Church has held 13 ecumenical councils; the Orthodox churches have held: none. That failure to arrange a worldwide gathering, for nearly a millennium, is a major failure for Orthodoxy. It is an indication that the Orthodox world has been troubled by nationalism and caesaropapism. Or to put it differently, it is a powerful argument that the Orthodox Church is not universal. In his book The Russian Church and the Papacy, the great Russian theologian Vladimir Soloviev cites the failure to convene an Orthodox council as one of the signs that the Church of Rome is the one true Church.

Seen against that background, the plans for a pan-Orthodox council—the first-ever universal council of leaders in the Orthodox world—is a very big story. Consequently, the serious questions about whether such a council will actually take place are also very big stories—even if they are not much noticed in the West.

In that context, take careful note of the statement released on January 18 by the Ecumenical Patriarchate of Constantinople, about a meeting of Orthodox primates to be held next week in Geneva. Nearly all the primates of the Orthodox world are expected to attend, and the agenda will be the “preparation” for the pan-Orthodox council that is tentatively planned for later this year.

In this case “preparation” does not mean merely settling the logistical details. The Orthodox primates have agreed that their council can take place only if they have reached essential agreement on all the crucial issues before they meet. The meeting that will take place in Geneva, then, might well decide the question of whether or not a pan-Orthodox council is possible.

- See more at: http://www.catholicculture.org/commentary/otn.cfm?id=1132#sthash.Th16Df4t.dpuf

The fact that there have been no Orthodox councils is not necessarily a bad thing. Councils in the west have created upheaval, dissension and outright schism, the last one being a good example of that. Maybe you should count your blessings.

Charles, you speak the truth!

What I don't understand is how some RC's, like this fellow, who just don't get what Vatican II has said about the Christian East.

Basically, he and others like him measure how "true" the Orthodox East is by how closely it approximates the bureaucracy and centralization of the Catholic West together with the later "ecumenical councils" convened by Rome.

One thing that Rome has yet to iron out is how "ecumenical" those later councils truly are - and if even they can be called such at all - given the historic criteria for establishing a council as ecumenical.

Were all these councils convoked to address a heresy affecting the Church? (You are right, I'm saying not.) And if the Orthodox East is what Rome today says it is (including the implications of the Balamand statement) then how can those "later Latin councils" be deemed "ecumenical" given that the East did not participate in them? The two so-called union councils of Lyons and Florence were, in a word, disastrous and continue to have a negative impact on contemporary Roman-Orthodox relations.

In addition, the controversy over what really is the "8th Ecumenical Council" in the West (and in the East as well) just won't go away. As we know, Rome originally accepted that Council that exonerated St Photios the Great and condemned the Filioque (Charles, it is always important not to let one's bias show too much when discussing these matters . . .). Then it declared that council null and void and historically referred to it as the "Pseudo-synod of Photius." In our days, along came Fr. Francis Dvornik to discuss this from an RC point of view . . .

As for nationalism - it's not like nationalism doesn't exist in Roman Catholic churches . . . let's get a grip on!

You mean St John Paul II wasn't a Polish patriot? You mean he didn't remove Poland from any Vatican consideration of Ostpolitik? One should read his sermon on the canonization of the Polish Carmelite St Raphael Kalinowski . . . I'm NOT saying that any of that is bad!! Just that here we have another North American Catholic who hasn't the faintest idea of what Catholicism looks like outside his American parochial orbit!

As an Eastern Catholic, I feel responsible for this to some extent, so I would like to offer an apology to our Orthodox brothers and sisters for this nonsense - beginning with Alice!

Alex

It's important to consider "historic criteria" so long as historians etc. are not making the final judgment. Every participant on this forum can raise the question of what makes a council ecumenical and even what that means in terms of binding decrees of various levels of doctrine and discipline. What should not be done is to substitute the opinion of others -- e.g. the council did not combat heresy, therefore, can't be ecumenical -- as a certain necessary or sufficient factor. The Catholic Church should certainly appraise its understanding of the way it gathers for solemn assembly. And when it voices that understanding it should be accorded the right to its own evaluation in proper measure, even and especially against the often flimsy, dated, undocumented, find-some-theologian/historian-that suits-my-purpose pronouncements on the matter. Here are some appraisals actually voiced in formal, official venues that should be given proper consideration and awareness in formulating a conclusion. They are from a prior, related thread, Re: First Seven Councils.

Here are words, like bookends, that bracket the "1962 synod commonly referred to as Vatican II" -- objective words where indeed "results speak for themselves." [below emphasis added]

On October 11, 1962, the first day of the Council, Pope John delivered this address in St. Peter's Basilica.


POPE PAUL VI'S CLOSING SPEECH AND MESSAGES FOR VATICAN COUNCIL II DECEMBER 8, 1965


APOSTOLIC BRIEF "IN SPIRITU SANCTO' FOR THE CLOSING OF THE COUNCIL

DECEMBER 8, 1965 read at the closing ceremonies of Dec. 8 by Archbishop Pericle Felici, general secretary of the council.

Dear Father Deacon,

Certainly, this is all about debate and historians do not, nor can, have the final word on any of this.

At the same time, you seem to have a very Roman Catholic perspective which is OK if one is Roman Catholic . . .

There have been voices in the West that have gone so far as to suggest that the 14 later Latin Councils might be one day considered Local rather than Ecumenical for a number of reasons (and not only based on the one you gave). That is something for the competent Church authorities to decide in future, when and even if they do.

Also, there can be no doubt that the universal Latin Church has had 21 Ecumenical Councils as such. One point of discussion could also be to what extent the Latin Church (which is too often, in these discussions, considered to be the "Catholic Church" alone - another debate) would need to one day, and formally, extend its self-understanding to disassociate the notion of the "Particular Latin Catholic Church" from that of the "Universal Catholic Church" - and the beginning point of debate on this would be to show how the two could be seen to have been confused in recent RC history - another unfortunate consequence of the parting of the ways with the Eastern Churches.

Alex

Every time the Latins have a council, they think it is ecumenical. It is interesting that to a large chunk of the apostolic church, it isn't. It is a case of, "just because you say it doesn't make it so."

Actually it was you having so much to say about Rome, asking speaking of Rome's, it seems, confusion,not me. I just let the Popes speak for themselves and do the ironing that you said was needed. Documented quotes -- you can be east, west, north or south to do that legitimately, without bias. Everyone is a voice. I just presented the voice of a, some would say the most, competent authority. An oxymoron. No such thing. Yes, in the sense nuanced by VCII the Catholic Church considers itself THE '"Catholic Church" alone.' But from what I've read and understand, so do the Orthodox think so of themselves, perhaps even more so.

And of course not "every time" but you have made my point that, at least in the example I gave, "the Latins" certainly consider it ecumenical, along with 20 others. Can this change? We will have to await an actual authoritative answer. This is true. It is also true that you can't have a party because I wouldn't come to it doesn't work either.

Then party on, dude! Or at least, the Latins can.

Dear Father Deacon,

If you want to catch people up on their words, two can play at that game (although it is unbecoming for you to do that as an albeit inactive Deacon) .

Yes, I brought up the matter of Rome - but by trying to bring in the Eastern perspective (what was your point about anyway then?). My point is that you don't appreciate the Eastern perspective and the official title of the Orthodox Church includes "Orthodox Catholic" - I like it myself.

We know all about the quotes you bring up and as for bias - are you kidding? So if someone wants to debate and discuss this issue (what is this Forum for anyway?), you come back with dogmatic teachings to quell the debate? That is what you consider to be your contribution, Reverend Father Deacon?

I don't like arguing with a Reverend Father Deacon, active or otherwise, because it will get me in trouble with the Administrator. So you have me at a disadvantage.

If you feel I'm being unfaithful to the Teaching Magisterium of the Holy Roman Church . . . again, this forum is for debating. I happen to appreciate the Orthodox perspectives here (yes, Recluse and Alice are wondering about me). But the Administrator here appreciates them too!

Anyway, I submit to the judgement of the Holy Roman Church in this matter and, following your directive, urge everyone else here to do the same . . . if they know what's good for them . . .

But I feel that I've offended you and the Holy Roman Church by even bringing these points up.

I've been looking for a legitimate reason to leave this forum for good and you've given it to me now. I wish you and everyone here the very best as I move on to a place which isn't so Papal as here! (I'm kidding, the Administrator here readily sings in Orthodox parishes . . .).

But I go nonetheless. All the best to everyone!

Alex

Alex, please don't become a deacon! My experience with them is that while most are good, the diaconate is often the last refuge of the most obnoxious converts. Stay free, argumentative, and unadorned with liturgical finery. We like you as you are.

This is actually a quote, for which you have failed to give credit: Arius (circa AD 325).

Nah, he probably said something similar in very stilted Latin.

I was sure it was from Bill & Ted's Excellent Adventure (1989.

Charles, it was among my most blessed experiences to have come to know you here. You are ... YOU. I thank God for that!

I've lost my appetite for controversy and sparring here. My attitude now is - WHATEVER!

All the best to you sir!

Alex

Alex, don't take any of this that seriously. I pay zero attention to the controversy and sparring here - or anywhere else. Life is short, enjoy it. What you can't change, pray over and laugh about. Too many, who probably don't know who they are, suffer from the old Latin affliction, "tighticus panticus." It causes, crankiness, intolerance, fanaticism, and a host of afflictions far worse.

"This fellow" [i.e., Phil Lawler] should know something about Vatican II and the Christian East, having been a Catholic journalist for more than 30 years, editing several Catholic magazines, writing eight books, and founding of Catholic World News, where he is the news director and lead analyst at CatholicCulture.org. Also, his father, Protodeacon Paul Lawler (of beloved memory) was among the first of the permanent deacons to be ordained for the Melkite Eparchy in the U.S., secretary to the late Eparch, Archbishop Joseph Tawil (also of beloved memory), and eparchial chancellor for many years.