Are the Orthodox holding a new ecumenical council?

[Bergon]

Due to the difficulties the Œcumenical Patriarch faces wouldn’t it be prudent for His Holiness to leave Turkey and establish himself elsewhere, e.g. Greece? Because this has never happened I surmise that it would be a major problem and wouldn’t be feasible? If the Œcumenical Patriarch can’t move: why can’t he move? Why must he stay in Turkey?

 

[Cavaradossi]

Due to the difficulties the Œcumenical Patriarch faces wouldn’t it be prudent for His Holiness to leave Turkey and establish himself elsewhere, e.g. Greece? Because this has never happened I surmise that it would be a major problem and wouldn’t be feasible? If the Œcumenical Patriarch can’t move: why can’t he move? Why must he stay in Turkey?

The Patriarch of Antioch moved to Damascus a long time ago, so it certainly is possible. But I doubt the Turks would simply let the Ecumenical Patriarchate leave Turkey with all of its relics. Plus, the city of Constantinople has some significance still to the Greeks. For the Patriarchate to leave would mean that the Turks would finally have succeeded in annihilating the 2500-year long or so history of Greeks in that region of the world.

 

[andrewstx]

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.

The Greeks and Russians have been fueding for centuries, and the EP is not an Orthodox Pope.

The Russians and Greeks both have their our own Patriarchates and the Greeks will never accept the autocephaly of the Russian origin Orthodox Church in America.

I don’t have much confidence that this council will ever happen. It has been suggested before, but the rivalry of the different national churches won’t let it happen.

 

[Bergon]

The Patriarch of Antioch moved to Damascus a long time ago, so it certainly is possible. But I doubt the Turks would simply let the Ecumenical Patriarchate leave Turkey with all of its relics. Plus, the city of Constantinople has some significance still to the Greeks. For the Patriarchate to leave would mean that the Turks would finally have succeeded in annihilating the 2500-year long or so history of Greeks in that region of the world.

Are you saying the Turks wouldn’t allow the Œcumenical Patriarch to leave Turkey or that they just wouldn’t allow him to remove patriarchal property? Would it mean leaving behing items of economic, artistic and historial value or would it include items of religious significance too? Sometimes we have to move on even with all the regret and nostalgia involved. What would serve the Church better a continued presence in a city that’s in an almost completely Islamic country or the Œcumenical Patriarch being able to fulfil his ministry with greater freedom?

I don’t know. I’m asking because I want to learn. I just don’t know how vital it is for the link to remain between the Œcumenical Patriarchate and Constantinople.

I wonder if Turkey’s attitude will have to change should it succeed in its application to join the EU.

 

[Nine_Two]

Are you saying the Turks wouldn’t allow the Œcumenical Patriarch to leave Turkey or that they just wouldn’t allow him to remove patriarchal property? Would it mean leaving behing items of economic, artistic and historial value or would it include items of religious significance too? Sometimes we have to move on even with all the regret and nostalgia involved. What would serve the Church better a continued presence in a city that’s in an almost completely Islamic country or the Œcumenical Patriarch being able to fulfil his ministry with greater freedom?

I don’t know. I’m asking because I want to learn. I just don’t know how vital it is for the link to remain between the Œcumenical Patriarchate and Constantinople.

I wonder if Turkey’s attitude will have to change should it succeed in its application to join the EU.

The Turks would probably be happy if he left, but they wouldn’t allow him to take much of the relics and such. The Turks are paranoid about their “cultural heritage”, even that which happened before the Turks actually came into the region. To a certain extent they have good reason - archeological artifacts were taken from the region in large numbers during the late Ottoman period (Troy is was brutalized by treasure hunters, and most of the treasures of Pergamon sit in a museum in Berlin - Just as an example).

 

[Bergon]

The Turks would probably be happy if he left, but they wouldn’t allow him to take much of the relics and such. The Turks are paranoid about their “cultural heritage”, even that which happened before the Turks actually came into the region. To a certain extent they have good reason - archeological artifacts were taken from the region in large numbers during the late Ottoman period (Troy is was brutalized by treasure hunters, and most of the treasures of Pergamon sit in a museum in Berlin - Just as an example).

To whom do the relics belong? Mind you I don’t think such niceties would bother the Turks. I infer from your comments that despite being a Muslim country they would still regard Christian relics as Turkish heritage.

 

[Cavaradossi]

Are you saying the Turks wouldn’t allow the Œcumenical Patriarch to leave Turkey or that they just wouldn’t allow him to remove patriarchal property? Would it mean leaving behing items of economic, artistic and historial value or would it include items of religious significance too? Sometimes we have to move on even with all the regret and nostalgia involved. What would serve the Church better a continued presence in a city that’s in an almost completely Islamic country or the Œcumenical Patriarch being able to fulfil his ministry with greater freedom?

I don’t know. I’m asking because I want to learn. I just don’t know how vital it is for the link to remain between the Œcumenical Patriarchate and Constantinople.

I wonder if Turkey’s attitude will have to change should it succeed in its application to join the EU.

By relics, I mean the relics of saints. It would be an international public relations disaster for Turkey if the EP were to leave because of the poor treatment the patriarchate has received in recent years, and they almost certainly would not let that happen in an official capacity, where the patriarchate gets to take the relics of saints and other treasures the patriarchate holds to Greece or some other foreign locality. In effect, I suspect that Turkey would probably use the threat of confiscating the relics to keep the EP mired there, rather than let him leave.

 

[Nine_Two]

To whom do the relics belong? Mind you I don’t think such niceties would bother the Turks. I infer from your comments that despite being a Muslim country they would still regard Christian relics as Turkish heritage.

The relics belong to the Church but many countries, and Turkey is one of them, have laws about taking items of cultural or historic significance out of the country. As I noted in my last post there are very good reasons for these laws, but they can be abused.

 

[Nine_Two]

By relics, I mean the relics of saints. It would be an international public relations disaster for Turkey if the EP were to leave because of the poor treatment the patriarchate has received in recent years, and they almost certainly would not let that happen in an official capacity, where the patriarchate gets to take the relics of saints and other treasures the patriarchate holds to Greece or some other foreign locality. In effect, I suspect that Turkey would probably use the threat of confiscating the relics to keep the EP mired there, rather than let him leave.

I think it depends on who is in power.

The Islamist government now firmly in power doesn’t seem to care as much about how the west sees Turkey, and seems to think they’d be just as happy without it bothering them.

The Kemalists on the other hand do care what the outside world thinks of them, and are as likely to want the Church there just as a point against the Islamists.

Christianity is all but outlawed throughout the country, they might as well make it official.

 

[pablope]

By relics, I mean the relics of saints. It would be an international public relations disaster for Turkey if the EP were to leave because of the poor treatment the patriarchate has received in recent years, and they almost certainly would not let that happen in an official capacity, where the patriarchate gets to take the relics of saints and other treasures the patriarchate holds to Greece or some other foreign locality. In effect, I suspect that Turkey would probably use the threat of confiscating the relics to keep the EP mired there, rather than let him leave.

Are not also past EPs buried there? What would happen to their tombs?

And where is St. Andrew the apostle’s tomb, isn’t it in Turkey?

 

[TheSufi]

We keep hearing this, such is/was the case for 2013. Then we keep hearing there is no need for one.

There actually is a need for one. The Church is divided. You have the Catholics, the Orthodox, the Coptics, and all these other Orthodox churches who recite the same Nicene creed yet on a official level do not recongize each other, yet, each one of these churches can trace their linage back to one of the apostles. The Catholics to Peter, the Greek Orthdox to Andrew, the Coptics, to Mark, the Indian Orthodox to Thomas etc etc etc.

I am not sure unity would happen, what pope would give up all that power, the Pope of the Catholics or the Pope of the Coptics, the Archbishop of Greek Orthodox so on and so forth.

There is a need.

Catholics need to let their priest marry, which is allowed among the other churches. I think this would help rid Catholics of pedophilia among the priests.

There is a need.

And they need to get rid of the popes, which exist among the catholics and coptics, and return everything to bishops.

But what pope and what arch bishop would give up that much power. The human side is what pulls us down.

Just my opinion.

 

[Christ_is_Risen]

The Greeks will never leave Constantinople, even if only the EP and religious remain. To do so would admit that the Turks have won.

When Greece declared its independence in 1821, the EP was lynched outside the front door of Patriarchal Cathedral in full patriarchal vestments on Easter Monday. His body was left to hang for 3 days, then drug through the streets and thrown in the sea.

The front door of the Cathedral was welded shut after that by the Greeks and has never been opened since.

But, as bad as the Ottomans were, I have to say secular/nationalist Turkey may be worse. At least the Ottomans allowed non-Muslims to live in Asia Minor, The nationalist Turks are the ones that took the step to purge Asia Minor and Constantinople of its non-Muslim residents. The Greeks suffered a great deal, the Armenians worse. So, no, the EP won’t be going anywhere, ever, at least there is hope that Turkey’s desire to join the EU will force them into religious tolerance, at least legally.

 

[Peter_J]

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.

As with a game of “telephone”, facts are sometimes repeated inaccurately. The Catholic argument is based on the fact that, except Mark of Ephesus, every bishop present accepted the council’s decrees. However, the Orthodox could point out that some bishops weren’t there to begin with, and some who were there actually fled the city rather than sign.

I think it will remain an impasse for a long time to come.

 

[Peter_J]

The Catholic theologians teach that the convening of an ecumenical council makes it an ecumenical council.

That’s a surprising strong claim. Do you remember it’s source?

 

[Peter_J]

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?

Indeed, it’s pretty messy. I believe that’s a large part of the reason that Catholics became very ultra-montane in the 500 years or so prior to Vatican II: they didn’t want to deal with the “messiness” as it were.

(Disclaimer: This isn’t meant to be an assessment of whether things are better since Vatican II or not.)

 

[Peter_J]

I read somewhere that the Orthodox were planning on holding an ecumenical council, the first one since the 7th one. I thought it was supposed to be this year or next. Can anyone shed some light on this? My understanding was that this was NOT to be just a pan-orthodox council.

If such a council does happen, I’m sure that nobody (well, hardly anybody) will call it the eighth ecumenical council.

What I mean is, there are already some later councils that some Orthodox think should be recognized as ecumenical councils. (I found an Orthodox link for further information: orthodoxwiki.org/Ecumenical_councils#Seven_or_Nine_Ecumenical_Councils.3F)