Balamand Statement not authoritative?

[Anastasia13]

Several of the Eastern Orthodox Churches consider the sobor, not the hierarchs, the final authority of the church.

The Catholic Church deems a sobor inferior to, and subordinate to, the synod - it’s advisory, not authoritative. The Slavic Orthodox consider the Sobor to be authoritative… and while the hierarchs supposedly form an upper house that can’t be overruled, it’s clear from past performance that the bishops seldom vote against the vote of the laity and lesser clerics present.

Further, it’s a practical factor issue… if the majority of the synod comes into union, but the faithful reject it, it takes only 2 bishops to establish a new rump synod which will get the majority of the faithful.

What is a rump synod?

I’ve never heard of a sobor in this context (i.e. anything more church related than intoxication related). You said, “The Catholic Church deems a sobor inferior to, and subordinate to, the synod” and I found a page that translates sobor as synod, so I think I need some clarification of terms to understand this. Do you mind explaining it a little?

 

[Aramis]

What is a rump synod?

I’ve never heard of a sobor in this context (i.e. anything more church related than intoxication related). You said, “The Catholic Church deems a sobor inferior to, and subordinate to, the synod” and I found a page that translates sobor as synod, so I think I need some clarification of terms to understand this. Do you mind explaining it a little?

A synod is composed of bishops of a singular metropolitan or patriarchal church.

A metropolitan or patriarchal sobor is comprised of (typically) the bishops, a few elected clerical representatives per bishop, and as many elected lay representative.

The term itself is slavic in origin, probably Ukrainian.

Note that the synod of a particular church includes the synod of that particular church.

Russian Orthodox also have diocesan sobors - every pastor, plus an equal number of elected non-pastor clerics (elected by the clergy), plus a 2 elected laity per parish.

The Russians pretty much let the sobor do what Catholics would restrict to the synod. Catholic Byzantine Slavic churches have been known to hold sobors… but not for electing new primates, nor derving church law.

I’ve seen complaints about Russian concilarity from Antiochian Orthodox writers… and Russians complaining about Antiochian Monarchialism…

If an eastern orthodox sobor voted to come into union, it would pretty much drag the whole of that particular church into union… because to get there, it would have had to have had broad support from both the laity and clergy. And that has historically happened.

The Antiochian Orthodox Church had the majority of the church come into union… now called the Melkite Catholic Church… about 1/5 of the bishops rejected union (and about 1/4 of the laity, from what I understand). The bishops who broke off formed a new synod, elected a new patriarch, and continued business as usual; such a break-away group is referred to as a “rump synod.” It’s not unique to Catholic nor Orthodox, either - several synodal protestant churches have used it to refer to the smaller faction after a schism, especially if the smaller faction is holding to some older version of liturgy or theology.

 

[Peter_J]

i hope your right but

Well, I’ll let theistgal speak for herself. (Unless you mean, you hope I’m right that the Orthodox laity and hierarchy are very much on the same page regarding dialogue with Catholics. )

Not the ‘traditionalists’

I’m not sure what your second line means. Not the ‘traditionalists’ what?

 

[Peter_J]

theistgal can correct me if I’m wrong, but I believe you are reading far too much into a statement that was purely hypothetical.

In actually point of fact, the Orthodox laity and hierarchy are very much on the same page regarding dialogue with Catholics.

P.S. I mean that they are in agreement with each other. I’m not suggesting that they are in agreement with Catholics.

 

[Paul_theApostle]

…that they agree about dialogue ,statements etc…

tradtional Orthodox churches…which are usually the Old calender churches or churches broken off from the mainstream

Mt athos have been against ecumenism also and people i used to go to church with at EO were against it also

 

[neokarny]

…that they agree about dialogue ,statements etc…

tradtional Orthodox churches…which are usually the Old calender churches or churches broken off from the mainstream

Mt athos have been against ecumenism also and people i used to go to church with at EO were against it also

I think he’s saying most Orthodox are united in their disagreement with Catholics.

 

[Anastasia13]

Mt athos have been against ecumenism also and people i used to go to church with at EO were against it also

Is that where the Greek monastery is that baptized people who were received into Orthodoxy by chrismation and not also baptism? They are a little more extreme than some churches.

 

[Peter_J]

I think he’s saying most Orthodox are united in their disagreement with Catholics.

I think that’s, perhaps, a very slight oversimplification, but basically right.

I don’t disagree with theistgal’s statement that “even if all their Patriarchs were to agree to reunite, it wouldn’t happen if the people rejected it” – as long as it’s understood in a purely hypothetical sense. It’s not like the Orthodox patriarchs are suddenly going to announce that they want to become ‘Orthodox in communion with Rome’.