Are the Orthodox holding a new ecumenical council?

[pablope]

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.

In reality we aren’t all that concerned about what the meeting is called. If it espouses the true faith and is accepted by all the churches, then what does it matter what people say it was?

Well…I dunno… You are the one who said there is a difference…it’ll be an ecumenical council, although more likely it’ll be another general synod

Well…would not a synod deal with matters of faith, anyway?

 

[Nine_Two]

Well…I dunno… You are the one who said there is a difference…it’ll be an ecumenical council, although more likely it’ll be another general synod

Well…would not a synod deal with matters of faith, anyway?

I suppose if pushed into it, I’d say the distinction can be as minor as the sacredness in which we hold the Ecumenical Councils which we don’t attribute to the later synods.

Synods can and have dealt with matters of faith, the Synod of Jerusalem condemned Calvinism as a heresy.

 

[Cavaradossi]

Okay…what is the difference between a synod and an EC? Or rather, what makes a synod a synod and an EC and EC?

Well, synod and council really are not differing terms. In Greek, one will see the Ecumenical Councils referred to as Ecumenical Synods.

What makes a synod ecumenical? That is hard to say. In the time of the first millennium, that question was almost a purely legal one. The title ecumenical referred not to the fact that the council was universal, but rather that it was a synod which reflected the views of bishops within the Christian oikoumene, which referred to the historical territories of the Roman Empire. When a council entered into imperial law, it was known as an ecumenical council, by virtue of being not only religiously, but also legally binding within the oikoumene.

Among Orthodox Christians who still remember distantly the concept of the oikoumene, it is somewhat questionable whether a council can be called ecumenical without the existence of an oikoumene. That does not mean that councils cannot teach with general authority, but only that a future general or pan-Orthodox council which may possibly not call itself ecumenical out of respect for the past.

 

[Cavaradossi]

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.

It took the Orthodox less time to reject Florence in some localities than it did for the Church to reject the robber synod at Ephesus. The Georgians never signed the council, and the Russians rejected it when Met. Isidore went to proclaim the union. The Three Eastern Patriarchs of Alexandria, Antioch, and Jerusalem (who were not actually present, but only had patriarchal vicars present at the council of Florence) took only four years to reject the council in 1443, owing to the slow rate at which information was transmitted in those days. In this, it only took them two years longer than it took the Church to reject the robber synod of Ephesus. St. Mark of Ephesus, obviously rejected the council. Back at home in Constantinople, he was joined by quite a few clerics, including several bishops like Anthony of Heracleia who repudiated his signature right upon returning home to Constantinople. I think the Orthodox would not even argue that it was something which happened over time, but rather that the immediate resistance, which won out within Orthodoxy, shows the council not to be ecumenical.

 

[IgnatianPhilo]

Without a Byzantine emperor or pope, there is no one way to legally force an Eastern Orthodox ecumenical council to convene. You have to wait until every jurisdiction agrees to meet up. Also, if anyone had problems about what was decided, there would be no way of obligating anyone to keep its decrees (id Mark of Ephesus).

Even when there was a Pope and an Emperor at Nicea the decrees were not considered this all binding thing, there were still Heteroousions in the empire along with Homoiousians. Any ecuemical council is going to take time, if there was a council to be had its acceptance would be worked out in the churches and if the majority came to accept its decrees it would be recognise as authoritative.

 

[Christ_is_Risen]

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)

Juristictionally, the Orthodox Church is a bit of a mess in North America (this traces back to the Communist Revolution in Russia, before that time the Russian Orthodox Church was the only one in North America). The OCA itself is the result Russian Orthodox mission in North America. Meanwhile the Greeks argue that some Canon (can’t remember which) grants them the right to lead the “barbarian lands”, which they interpret to mean any country that isn’t Orthodox.

Either way, almost all of the 15 autocephalous Orthodox Churches (and at least three autonomous Churches) have a presence in North America, and all 15 agree that this isn’t how it should be. One bishop per territory, not 15 overlapping but separate bishoprics per jurisdiction.

I should point out that in spite of these disagreements, we all recognize each other as being fully Orthodox.

Thank you. I think the problem is I don’t know enough to separate the rhetoric from the reality, the ways things are from the way people would like things to be.

Does the EP wish the OCA to be represented by the Russian Patriarch because granting them a separate status would be undercutting his own claim of jurisdiction in North America? Meanwhile, Russia wants the OCA to be represented seperately in an attempt to give that body more independence?

 

[jimkhong]

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.

So, decision-making at a council (and we now have >4000 bishops) have to be unanimous?

 

[Filii_Dei]

So, decision-making at a council (and we now have >4000 bishops) have to be unanimous?

I think it would be unfair to narrowly define it by unanimous consent. From what it appears, there does not need to be consensus from all bishops during the council in order to make a decision, but once that decision has been proclaimed, it must eventually be accepted by all - or at least not ignored, undermined, contradicted or rejected.

 

[fnr]

Yes, I know, but the political implications of Chalcedon are far more clear. At least so IMHO.

Yes. The biggest implication being Islam!

 

[Cavaradossi]

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.

It all comes back to interpretations of the canons. The Ecumenical Patriarchate claims that outside of the historical Orthodox lands, it should have jurisdiction over the Orthodox diaspora, according to canons 28 of Chalcedon and 36 of Trullo (which simply reaffirms canon 3 of First Constantinople and canon 28 of Chalcedon), which give jurisdiction over the lands of the barbarians to the Ecumenical Patriarch. The other patriarchates seem to disagree. The question, however, despite the tension it can cause, is purely a legal one, but it has had the consequence of allowing for the establishment of parallel jurisdictions, which also violates the canons, so it is a real canonical problem which needs to be solved in the future.

Does the EP wish the OCA to be represented by the Russian Patriarch because granting them a separate status would be undercutting his own claim of jurisdiction in North America? Meanwhile, Russia wants the OCA to be represented seperately in an attempt to give that body more independence?

So this ties back into the dispute over canon 28 of Chalcedon. The Ecumenical Patriarchate seems to claim that it alone has the privilege to grant a tomos of autocephaly to a Church. The Patriarchate of Moscow, having formerly had jurisdiction over the OCA before granting it a tomos of autocephaly obviously disagrees.

Edit: I should also add a definition of what it means to be granted a tomos of autocephaly. An autocephalous Church needs no approval from another body of bishops to elect its primate.

 

[Cavaradossi]

Yes. The biggest implication being Islam!

How exactly does one jump from Chalcedon to Islam? That seems like it would take some very strained logic.

 

[Christ_is_Risen]

It all comes back to interpretations of the canons. The Ecumenical Patriarchate claims that outside of the historical Orthodox lands, it should have jurisdiction over the Orthodox diaspora, according to canons 28 of Chalcedon and 36 of Trullo (which simply reaffirms canon 3 of First Constantinople and canon 28 of Chalcedon), which give jurisdiction over the lands of the barbarians to the Ecumenical Patriarch. The other patriarchates seem to disagree. The question, however, despite the tension it can cause, is purely a legal one, but it has had the consequence of allowing for the establishment of parallel jurisdictions, which also violates the canons, so it is a real canonical problem which needs to be solved in the future.

So this ties back into the dispute over canon 28 of Chalcedon. The Ecumenical Patriarchate seems to claim that it alone has the privilege to grant a tomos of autocephaly to a Church. The Patriarchate of Moscow, having formerly had jurisdiction over the OCA before granting it a tomos of autocephaly obviously disagrees.

Edit: I should also add a definition of what it means to be granted a tomos of autocephaly. An autocephalous Church needs no approval from another body of bishops to elect its primate.

Thanks for the reply.

 

[fnr]

How exactly does one jump from Chalcedon to Islam? That seems like it would take some very strained logic.

It’s circumstantial, but I think there’s a good degree of evidence looking at space, time, and text. I’m using historical-critical readings of the Quran and Hadith to make the claim.

First, Chalcedon took place in 451 AD, and Muhammad’s first “revelation” took place in 610 AD. In that 161 years, a lot happened. The non-Chalcedonian churches split off from the Byzo-Romans in Constantinople, and the Christological conflicts between them seem to prefigure the Quran’s and Hadith’s railings against Jesus being God. In particular, Nestorian Christians (dyophysites) in Syria condemned the Jacobite (miaphysite) Christian view that implied that there was one nature in Christ (like water and wine in a cup).

Caravans that traded with Meccans traveled through Syria, establishing a route by which news and stories of the Christian world could influence Muhammad (who was a trader).

There’s evidence in the Quran of a particular hostility toward Jacobite/miaphysite Christians. In particular, the description of the Marib Dam’s failure in the 570s, resulting in the displacement of thousands of refugees that flowed north from Yemen and the destruction of the agricultural bounty for which the region had been long famed (Saba = Sheba, mentioned in the Old Testament). This was a catastrophe that left an indelible mark on the people of the region. Islam interpreted it as evidence of God’s wrath against the “turning away” of the people of the region. The region had been recently conquered by the Himyarites, from Ethiopia who held both miaphysite and heavily Judaic beliefs. The disaster left a nice big target on miaphysite beliefs.

In Sura 34 (Saba), we see the failure of the dam blamed on the “turning away” of the people of Saba:

15 There was for [the tribe of] Saba’ in their dwelling place a sign: two [fields of] gardens on the right and on the left. [They were told], “Eat from the provisions of your Lord and be grateful to Him. A good land [have you], and a forgiving Lord.”
16 But they turned away [refusing], so We sent upon them the flood of the dam, and We replaced their two [fields of] gardens with gardens of bitter fruit, tamarisks and something of sparse lote trees.
17 [By] that We repaid them because they disbelieved. And do We [thus] repay except the ungrateful?"

So by this theory, Muhammad was participating in the Christological conflicts among the non-Chalcedonian Christians of his region of the world. Notably, the Hijaz lies close to the borders of miaphysite (e.g., Ghassanids) and dyophysite (e.g., Syrian) Christians.

There is other evidence that Muhammad was participating in Christian debates of his day. Notably, Sura 5 (the feast) includes an incongruous reference to what appears to be the Eucharist, with Allah sending down a feast from Heaven. Even the Quran says that failing to believe in this “feast” will result in unparalleled punishment against the disbeliever:

112 [And remember] when the disciples said, “O Jesus, Son of Mary, can your Lord send down to us a table [spread with food] from the heaven? [Jesus] said,” Fear Allah , if you should be believers."
113 They said, “We wish to eat from it and let our hearts be reassured and know that you have been truthful to us and be among its witnesses.”
114 Said Jesus, the son of Mary, “O Allah , our Lord, send down to us a table [spread with food] from the heaven to be for us a festival for the first of us and the last of us and a sign from You. And provide for us, and You are the best of providers.”
115 Allah said, “Indeed, I will sent it down to you, but whoever disbelieves afterwards from among you - then indeed will I punish him with a punishment by which I have not punished anyone among the worlds.”

To me, there can be very little doubt that these words are taken almost verbatim (given translation and later Muslim redaction) from John 6, with a crowd that follows Jesus after the feeding of the five thousand, and Jesus declaring himself to be the bread come down from heaven, saying that unless you eat/drink of him, “you shall have no life within you.” To me, the parallels are undeniable.

There are other Christian apocrypha and folk stories in the Quran. The Quran includes the story of young Jesus blowing life into clay birds, a story found in the apocryphal Infancy Gospel of Thomas. The Quran includes the story of the Seven Sleepers, a story first told by the Syrian bishop, Jacob of Saraug (c. 450-521). All these emphases suggest that Muhammad was drawing from a rich tradition of Christian culture.

I can’t prove for sure that Muhammad thought he was participating in Christian conflicts, but do know that Uthman burned all extant copies of the Quran that he hadn’t had redacted and edited to reflect his own conception of what Islam was supposed to be.

 

[Cavaradossi]

It’s circumstantial, but I think there’s a good degree of evidence looking at space, time, and text. I’m using historical-critical readings of the Quran and Hadith to make the claim.

First, Chalcedon took place in 451 AD, and Muhammad’s first “revelation” took place in 610 AD. In that 161 years, a lot happened. The non-Chalcedonian churches split off from the Byzo-Romans in Constantinople, and the Christological conflicts between them seem to prefigure the Quran’s and Hadith’s railings against Jesus being God. In particular, Nestorian Christians (dyophysites) in Syria condemned the Jacobite (miaphysite) Christian view that implied that there was one nature in Christ (like water and wine in a cup).

Caravans that traded with Meccans traveled through Syria, establishing a route by which news and stories of the Christian world could influence Muhammad (who was a trader).

There’s evidence in the Quran of a particular hostility toward Jacobite/miaphysite Christians. In particular, the description of the Marib Dam’s failure in the 570s, resulting in the displacement of thousands of refugees that flowed north from Yemen and the destruction of the agricultural bounty for which the region had been long famed (Saba = Sheba, mentioned in the Old Testament). This was a catastrophe that left an indelible mark on the people of the region. Islam interpreted it as evidence of God’s wrath against the “turning away” of the people of the region. The region had been recently conquered by the Himyarites, from Ethiopia who held both miaphysite and heavily Judaic beliefs. The disaster left a nice big target on miaphysite beliefs.

In Sura 34 (Saba), we see the failure of the dam blamed on the “turning away” of the people of Saba:

So by this theory, Muhammad was participating in the Christological conflicts among the non-Chalcedonian Christians of his region of the world. Notably, the Hijaz lies close to the borders of miaphysite (e.g., Ghassanids) and dyophysite (e.g., Syrian) Christians.

There is other evidence that Muhammad was participating in Christian debates of his day. Notably, Sura 5 (the feast) includes an incongruous reference to what appears to be the Eucharist, with Allah sending down a feast from Heaven. Even the Quran says that failing to believe in this “feast” will result in unparalleled punishment against the disbeliever:

To me, there can be very little doubt that these words are taken almost verbatim (given translation and later Muslim redaction) from John 6, with a crowd that follows Jesus after the feeding of the five thousand, and Jesus declaring himself to be the bread come down from heaven, saying that unless you eat/drink of him, “you shall have no life within you.” To me, the parallels are undeniable.

There are other Christian apocrypha and folk stories in the Quran. The Quran includes the story of young Jesus blowing life into clay birds, a story found in the apocryphal Infancy Gospel of Thomas. The Quran includes the story of the Seven Sleepers, a story first told by the Syrian bishop, Jacob of Saraug (c. 450-521). All these emphases suggest that Muhammad was drawing from a rich tradition of Christian culture.

I can’t prove for sure that Muhammad thought he was participating in Christian conflicts, but do know that Uthman burned all extant copies of the Quran that he hadn’t had redacted and edited to reflect his own conception of what Islam was supposed to be.

I could probably accept that as plausible, especially with some of the revisionist scholarship out there that argues that the Quran may be a corruption of a Syriac lectionary. It should be interesting to see whether or not the revisionist (and I mean that in the non-pejorative sense of the term) theories eventually become mainstream.

 

[Nine_Two]

Thank you. I think the problem is I don’t know enough to separate the rhetoric from the reality, the ways things are from the way people would like things to be.

Does the EP wish the OCA to be represented by the Russian Patriarch because granting them a separate status would be undercutting his own claim of jurisdiction in North America? Meanwhile, Russia wants the OCA to be represented seperately in an attempt to give that body more independence?

Not quite. The OCA’s claim to autocephalous stems from the Russian Orthodox Church, while the EP claims that only it can grant other churches autocephalous status.

The reality is that outside of an Ecumenical Council there is no precedent of an autonomous Church gaining its independence from someone other than the EP so the idea that another church can give a portion of itself such status is untested, which is why the issue is so important to everyone.

I suspect any synod will leave that question unanswered though. Past plans have proposed that every jurisdiction merge in North America, effectively disbanding the OCA and replacing it with something else. For its part the OCA is fine with this.

 

[Cavaradossi]

Not quite. The OCA’s claim to autocephalous stems from the Russian Orthodox Church, while the EP claims that only it can grant other churches autocephalous status.

The reality is that outside of an Ecumenical Council there is no precedent of an autonomous Church gaining its independence from someone other than the EP so the idea that another church can give a portion of itself such status is untested, which is why the issue is so important to everyone.

I suspect any synod will leave that question unanswered though. Past plans have proposed that every jurisdiction merge in North America, effectively disbanding the OCA and replacing it with something else. For its part the OCA is fine with this.

SCOBA and the group which recently has replaced it, the Assembly of Canonical Orthodox Bishops of North and Central America (what a long name), have made good progress towards the goal of coordinating the bishops in America and setting up an infrastructure for the hopeful eventual consolidation of jurisdictions here in America.

 

[Christ_is_Risen]

Not quite. The OCA’s claim to autocephalous stems from the Russian Orthodox Church, while the EP claims that only it can grant other churches autocephalous status.

The reality is that outside of an Ecumenical Council there is no precedent of an autonomous Church gaining its independence from someone other than the EP so the idea that another church can give a portion of itself such status is untested, which is why the issue is so important to everyone.

I suspect any synod will leave that question unanswered though. Past plans have proposed that every jurisdiction merge in North America, effectively disbanding the OCA and replacing it with something else. For its part the OCA is fine with this.

Ok, so I will ask the “elephant in the room” question and hope it doesn’t offend anyone.

Do these disputes stem from the fact that the EP has a greater power in theory, than he has power in actuality?

From what I can tell the EP was not just a religious leader, but etharch of all Orthodox Christians during Ottoman times, and that the Greeks from the Phanar part of Constantinople were used by the Turks as local political leaders of many non-Greek Orthodox regions.

These days, it seems the EP is like a great shepherd with a small flock. The Orthodox in Asia Minor are all but gone, and the Turks have him handcuffed to the point where sustainability of the office seems to be a real issue in that only Turkish citizens are eligible to become Patriarch.

Do the other autocephalous Churches see an opportunity to gain more clout in the world of Orthodoxy? Are the Greeks trying to keep the office of the EP more important in the Orthodox world because, well, he is Greek (NO offense, I love the Greeks, literally, almost as much as the Greeks love their own Church and history.)

I apologize if this is straying into the politics of the Orthodox Church, but it is admittedly difficult for my Catholic eyes to understand the nuances of governance in the Orthodox Church, and I suppose I am trying to figure what is doctrine, what is discipline, and what is politics. I hope my posts show I am making some head way.

 

[Nine_Two]

Ok, so I will ask the “elephant in the room” question and hope it doesn’t offend anyone.

I’m going to try to answer your question paragraph by paragraph, as best I can.

Do these disputes stem from the fact that the EP has a greater power in theory, than he has power in actuality?

I don’t think so, I think it is more a question of interpreting what powers the EP has. Many of these canons haven’t been tested in over a thousand years.

From what I can tell the EP was not just a religious leader, but etharch of all Orthodox Christians during Ottoman times, and that the Greeks from the Phanar part of Constantinople were used by the Turks as local political leaders of many non-Greek Orthodox regions.

I think this is the route of the issue actually. During the Ottoman era, the Churches within the Ottoman Empire were all made subject to the EP (as ethnarch as you say), while outside the Ottoman world pretty much everyone fell under the Russian sphere of influence. There were additional churches throughout the period, but they were all smaller.

These days, it seems the EP is like a great shepherd with a small flock. The Orthodox in Asia Minor are all but gone, and the Turks have him handcuffed to the point where sustainability of the office seems to be a real issue in that only Turkish citizens are eligible to become Patriarch.

This is true. The bulk of the EPs flock is now in North America, something which makes things difficult. Officially the EP still has a third of Greece, but in reality it is administered by the Church of Greece.

Do the other autocephalous Churches see an opportunity to gain more clout in the world of Orthodoxy? Are the Greeks trying to keep the office of the EP more important in the Orthodox world because, well, he is Greek (NO offense, I love the Greeks, literally, almost as much as the Greeks love their own Church and history.)

Other than the Russians I don’t think anyone is competing with the EP for a leadership role in the Church internationally. The Romanians do try to maintain a high profile, which has gotten them into disputes with other churches, but they don’t seem to be looking for a leadership role.
(By the way, I’m a fellow non-Greek Hellenophile)

I apologize if this is straying into the politics of the Orthodox Church, but it is admittedly difficult for my Catholic eyes to understand the nuances of governance in the Orthodox Church, and I suppose I am trying to figure what is doctrine, what is discipline, and what is politics. I hope my posts show I am making some head way.

No need to apologize.
Within Orthodoxy, the lines aren’t drawn very clearly.

 

[Cavaradossi]

Ok, so I will ask the “elephant in the room” question and hope it doesn’t offend anyone.

Do these disputes stem from the fact that the EP has a greater power in theory, than he has power in actuality?

From what I can tell the EP was not just a religious leader, but etharch of all Orthodox Christians during Ottoman times, and that the Greeks from the Phanar part of Constantinople were used by the Turks as local political leaders of many non-Greek Orthodox regions.

It is, frankly an improvement that he is no longer the ethnarch, as the mixture of supreme civil power and religious authority in one figure is a rather dangerous mixture. However, I don’t believe that his position of ethnarch entered too much into the canonical constitution of the Church, so from a legal perspective, the tremendous power held by the EP during the previous era of the Turkish yoke should be less problematic, as even the EP has not disputed its loss of its civil power as ethnarch.

These days, it seems the EP is like a great shepherd with a small flock. The Orthodox in Asia Minor are all but gone, and the Turks have him handcuffed to the point where sustainability of the office seems to be a real issue in that only Turkish citizens are eligible to become Patriarch.

The EP is in an odd position, because he does have a flock, but it exists outside of his legal country of residence, Turkey, instead being spread out among some islands in Greece, mount Athos, and the Orthodox diaspora. The Ecumenical Patriarchate is certainly a shadow of what it once was, after the forced deportations of Greeks from Turkey in the 1950s. That being said, the Turkish government is now issuing Turkish citizenship to bishops within the Ecumenical Patriarchate who apply for one (though the Turkish government obviously reserves the right to deny any application). The biggest issue for the Patriarchate right now is the status of the Halki seminary. The Turks have promised to give the land back to the Patriarchate (in fact, they have promised to return all of the illegally confiscated property back to the Patriarchate, which would be a true miracle, if they actually follow through), but the future status of the seminary (which remains closed) is still unknown, as far as I know.

Do the other autocephalous Churches see an opportunity to gain more clout in the world of Orthodoxy? Are the Greeks trying to keep the office of the EP more important in the Orthodox world because, well, he is Greek (NO offense, I love the Greeks, literally, almost as much as the Greeks love their own Church and history.)

I don’t think so. Everybody seems to respect the canonical ordering of bishops. For example, at the recent events celebrating the 1025th anniversary of the Baptism of Rus, it was not Patriarch Kirill who took precedence, but Patriarch Theodore II of Alexandria (the second highest ranking bishop in Orthodoxy today), who was the highest ranking bishop present.

It seems to me that the disagreements are truly over a canonical question of what prerogatives have been granted to the Patriarch of Constantinople, mainly the question of what it meant for the fathers to give jurisdiction over the barbarians lands to Constantinople. Did they mean to put under his jurisdiction all unevangelized “barbarian” cultures of the world (effectively giving him complete control over the evangelization of the world), or just over the “barbarians” who were known at that time? Would such an arrangement be advantageous today? How could we update our canon law effectively to reflect that, if we were to come collectively to such a decision?

Closely related to the above canonical question are also the parallel jurisdictions (which everybody agrees violates the canons), which exist in some places of the world. How exactly can we fix the parallel jurisdictions, and how also can we update our canons in order to prevent similar situations in the future? These are the important issues which need to be resolved at some point, and updating our canons to address these issues seems to be a large part of Patriarch Bartholomew’s agenda for the pan-Orthodox synod for which he continues to make preparations. What almost everybody suspects though, is that the “preparations” which he mentions are really where all of the political processes are being accomplished behind the scenes, so to speak. That way, when (if ever) the council is convened, there will be very few (if any) open points of disagreement to resolve.

I apologize if this is straying into the politics of the Orthodox Church, but it is admittedly difficult for my Catholic eyes to understand the nuances of governance in the Orthodox Church, and I suppose I am trying to figure what is doctrine, what is discipline, and what is politics. I hope my posts show I am making some head way.

I hope that you have found the Orthodox posters here helpful, so far.

 

[Christ_is_Risen]

Yes, the Orthodox posters on this site have been very kind and helpful.