Wow! Really?!
The Byzantine Empire is, of course, long gone, and the very thought of a “Byzantine Pope” with the authority to do this just does not compute.
) flying.I know that in debates about the Council of Florence… The Catholics say that the pope called for an ecumenical council and every EO bishop accepted it except one (Mark of Ephesus), therefore it is certainly ecumenical. The EOs say that it was not an ecumenical council because over time the Orthodox Church ultimately rejected it.The Byzantine Empire is, of course, long gone, and the very thought of a “Byzantine Pope” with the authority to do this just does not compute.
In theory, I suppose, a proposition could be put before each respective Synod. If the proposition were accepted, and a Council were convened, would not all be bound to its decrees by virtue of the their Synod’s pre-acceptance of the proposition? That’s just hypothetical, of course, as the likelihood of such a thing happening is about the same as pigs (other than loud little Maxwell
This is a position I"ve always struggled with. It strikes me as arbitrary and unworkable in practice. Were any of the first seven councils accepted by the “entire Church”. Absolutely not. Not by any stretch of the imagination. If the argument is that a council is only binding if the entire Church accepts it, Chalcedon is out as both the Copts and Syriacs rejected it. Otherwise the reasoning becomes very circular…Chalcedon is binding because those of the truth faith accepted it. I thought the purpose of the Council was to clarify the orthodox position. I have a similar concern with the position of many Eastern / Oriental Catholics that none of the post-schism General Councils of the Catholic Church are binding ecumenical councils as the Orthodox were not present… why then were the fourth through seventh councils binding without the Orientals? What’s the cut off? Is the Church of Christ impotent unless every conceiveable validly ordained bishop in full communion with each other?
Pardon my generalization… A typical conservative Russian answer would be that the 4th Ecumenical Council supported the Orthodox faith and those that rejected it are not part of the Orthodox Church since they rejected the Orthodox faith. All of the Orthodox bishops accepted the 4th Council, therefore, it is ecumenical.
Exactly the circular reasoning I was referencing in my previous post. It drives me nuts - and it is one of the reasons why I could never be Orthodox.Pardon my generalization… A typical conservative Russian answer would be that the 4th Ecumenical Council supported the Orthodox faith and those that rejected it are not part of the Orthodox Church since they rejected the Orthodox faith. All of the Orthodox bishops accepted the 4th Council, therefore, it is ecumenical.
I think the idea behind it is that it is essentially a retroactive definition. One cannot properly call it an ecumenical council until everyone who remains in communion has either accepted it or left the communion, then it may be called an ecumenical council, and thereafter it must be accepted in perpetuity, and may be used as a whacking stick against any heretics.
No question that it’s arbitrary. I will reserve comment on whether or not it’s unworkable.
Indeed, the purpose is to clarify the orthodox position. Chalcedon, however, presents many of its own unique problems. One of which is that it was called by the Byzantine Emperor. Let’s face it: when a political entity is involved, can political interests be far away?
This, I think, is rather different. Nothing precludes a Church from calling a General Synod (“Council” if one prefers), to deal with whatever issues it may face. It’s canons are binding on that Church. But to call such a Synod/Council “Oecumenical” seems to me to be a bit of a stretch. Further, nothing says that every bishop involved is forced to accept such a Synod’s/Council’s determinations. Those who outright reject them are excluded from the fold of communion (e.g. the Old Catholics). I suppose one has also to consider the matters put before those Synods/Councils. How many of them have (in the later Councils) had a bearing beyond the Latin Church?
Chalcedon is not unique in this regard. Of the first seven Ecumenical Councils, all were called by Roman (i.e., Byzantine) Emperors–except the seventh, which was called by an Empress.Chalcedon, however, presents many of its own unique problems. One of which is that it was called by the Byzantine Emperor. Let’s face it: when a political entity is involved, can political interests be far away?
Talk about a pan-Orthodox synod has been stirring for years, and proposed dates have come and gone, so I wouldn’t bet on it happening within any particular timeframe. The problem is that not everyone in the Orthodox Church is as enthusiastic about the concept as one might think. The Greek Churches are interested, but the Slavic traditions might condemn it as an exercise in renovationism and ecumenicism. As I understand, the Moscow Patriarchate are most opposed to any pan-Orthodox synod, despite being the most populous Church in the Orthodox Communion. It may sound silly, but if you think about how the US is one of the biggest critics of the United Nations, despite also being its biggest contributor, it kind of makes sense. The reasons are rather similar.
Yes, I know, but the political implications of Chalcedon are far more clear. At least so IMHO.
Well…how can one tell which is the true orthodox faith if there was one or some (a handful) who rejected what was decided in the council?Pardon my generalization… A typical conservative Russian answer would be that the 4th Ecumenical Council supported the Orthodox faith and those that rejected it are not part of the Orthodox Church since they rejected the Orthodox faith. All of the Orthodox bishops accepted the 4th Council, therefore, it is ecumenical.
Okay…what is the difference between a synod and an EC? Or rather, what makes a synod a synod and an EC and EC?
I am so confused. Is this a church separate from than the Russian Orthodox Church and the Greek Orthodox Church. Do they recognize the EP as their Patriarch? I was under the impression that all Orthodox in America where within his “sphere,” but in another thread it was indicated that only Greeks were likely to accept this.
The distinction is not well defined, historically the ECs were all called by Emperors but they also called councils that aren’t recognized as Ecumenical. I suppose the answer I would give (and remember it isn’t well defined so someone can give you a whole other answer, and neither of us are necessarily wrong) but an Ecumenical Council deals with matters of faith, is accepted by all the churches, and stands the test of time. The Synod of Jerusalem does actually meet this definition and for that reason there are many who would argue it was an Ecumenical Council.
The situation you describe is what the Greeks say it should be, nothing close to what it is (this is one of the issues to be discussed at the council, which is why the OCA wants to be represented)I am so confused. Is this a church separate from than the Russian Orthodox Church and the Greek Orthodox Church. Do they recognize the EP as their Patriarch? I was under the impression that all Orthodox in America where within his “sphere,” but in another thread it was indicated that only Greeks were likely to accept this.
Sorry to be so obtuse, but my wife and kids are GO and I try to understand as much as I can in order to answer questions my kids have.