Beginner question- Greek Orthodoxy

[ConstantineTG]

it seems you have rebutted your own arguement, at first you said all bishops must accept the council before it can be considered ecumenical and above you just showed us that the ecumenical councils where not accepted by all in some cases bishops had to be deposed in another case the result was schism.

Well, that is the reality of what happened. What else can I say? Sometimes the dissenters just died off and were replaced by those who agree to the decree of the council. There were also a lot of cases when certain holy people fought for the true faith despite overwhelming odds. They never left the Church despite persecutions by those in the Church. So it is telling when people leave vs. those who suffer for the truth. If certain bishops rather schism than fight for the truth, you know that they really don’t have much going for them.

 

[Ubenedictus]

Well, that is the reality of what happened. What else can I say? Sometimes the dissenters just died off and were replaced by those who agree to the decree of the council. There were also a lot of cases when certain holy people fought for the true faith despite overwhelming odds. They never left the Church despite persecutions by those in the Church. So it is telling when people leave vs. those who suffer for the truth. If certain bishops rather schism than fight for the truth, you know that they really don’t have much going for them.

then i would say the reality of what happen shows that there is something wrong with the idea that says “a council must be accepted by all the bishops, if not it is not ecumenical”. If that idea is used then i doubt there will be anything called an ecumenical council, there is hardly any council that was accepted by all the bishops.

 

[ConstantineTG]

then i would say the reality of what happen shows that there is something wrong with the idea that says “a council must be accepted by all the bishops, if not it is not ecumenical”. If that idea is used then i doubt there will be anything called an ecumenical council, there is hardly any council that was accepted by all the bishops.

Of course there is, there are 7 of them. Can you point to a bishop today in a canonical Church that would deny the First Seven Ecumenical Councils? As the passage in Acts said, "For if their purpose or activity is of human origin, it will fail. But if it is from God, you will not be able to stop these men; you will only find yourselves fighting against God.”

History itself proves that this is how Ecumenical Councils become Ecumenical. Whether you agree with it or not is besides the point. The Second Ecumenical Council wasn’t thought to be Ecumenical until the Fourth one was convened. The first council thought as the Seventh actually approved of iconoclasm, only to be rejected later and replaced with the true Seventh Ecumenical Council that upheld the use of icons and religious images. And it wasn’t until a later council that the decrees of that council was effected. These are historical facts, this is the way it is. I’m sorry you don’t agree with how it is, but that doesn’t change the fact.

 

[Ubenedictus]

Of course there is, there are 7 of them. Can you point to a bishop today in a canonical Church that would deny the First Seven Ecumenical Councils? As the passage in Acts said, "For if their purpose or activity is of human origin, it will fail. But if it is from God, you will not be able to stop these men; you will only find yourselves fighting against God.”

History itself proves that this is how Ecumenical Councils become Ecumenical. Whether you agree with it or not is besides the point. The Second Ecumenical Council wasn’t thought to be Ecumenical until the Fourth one was convened. The first council thought as the Seventh actually approved of iconoclasm, only to be rejected later and replaced with the true Seventh Ecumenical Council that upheld the use of icons and religious images. And it wasn’t until a later council that the decrees of that council was effected. These are historical facts, this is the way it is. I’m sorry you don’t agree with how it is, but that doesn’t change the fact.

that is your view of history, if we go by your history that means the 7th council wasn’t and isn’t ecumenical because it was never confirmed. HISTORY BETRAYS YOU!!!

The fact that the councils are accepted today isn’t poof that all bishops accepted them then, so i don’t see why you are reminding me that they are accepted today. The 1st paragraph doesn’t concern this discussion.

 

[dzheremi]

Why is this conversation being conducted this way? Does anyone gain or lose anything by acknowledging that in the Orthodox Church there is no mechanical means by which a council may be declared ecumenical, but that it gains that status over time? I have heard of people joining the EO from a Catholic background who subsequently left because they couldn’t be comfortable without such assurances, and I find that quite sad.

Here’s an idea: Don’t worry about what those outside of your communion consider ecumenical unless you’re seriously considering converting to their communion. Otherwise, I don’t know why the canons of Trullo, or any other guideline by which the EO govern themselves, should matter to you. In the Coptic Orthodox Church, we even have our own canons that are just for us, and not for other OO churches (one set of them, fifteen in number, is actually shared with the Melkites/Chalcedonians, pointing to their very ancient origins, while the larger set of 105 or 106 concerns the Copts specifically), which have their own laws. This is not a problem for us, but reading through this thread I get the sense that this reality would likely drive RCs crazy.

 

[ConstantineTG]

that is your view of history, if we go by your history that means the 7th council wasn’t and isn’t ecumenical because it was never confirmed. HISTORY BETRAYS YOU!!!

It is confirmed. What do you mean it isn’t? Can you think of a canonical Church today from the Catholics and Orthodox that reject iconography and other religious images?

The fact that the councils are accepted today isn’t poof that all bishops accepted them then, so i don’t see why you are reminding me that they are accepted today. The 1st paragraph doesn’t concern this discussion.

That is the thing, they don’t have to be accepted at the conclusion of the council. The Second Ecumenical Council was convened as a local council, the Pope and other Western bishops weren’t even invited. But by the Fourth Ecumenical Council, they realized that the teachings they were upholding universally was codified in the Second Ecumenical Council, so by virtue of the universal acceptance of the council, it became Ecumenical and was labeled as the Second Ecumenical Council.

I never said that acceptance has to be at the conclusion of the council. In fact, I clearly stated that. The Fourth Ecumenical Council was another good example, it was very contentious and to this day is keeping the Oriental Orthodox and Eastern Orthodox from reuniting. The Oriental Orthodox never accepted the council, but of course in the due course of time the bishops were replaced, the replacement was resisted, and there was a schism. Those who came to accept the council were recognized as the canonical bishops, but of course from the point of view of the Oriental Orthodox it is their bishops who have the canonical right. But as far as the Chalcedonian Church (those who accepted the council which includes the Eastern Orthodox and Roman Catholics) are concerned, all recognized canonical bishops have accepted the council. And this happened much, much later on.

 

[Reuben_J]

This is not a problem for us, but reading through this thread I get the sense that this reality would likely drive RCs crazy.

Every churches have their own canons and councils if they want to, nobody can stop them. But to say that a certain canon/Council should be accepted/recognized by all, even if some don’t want to accept/recognized it, well, it can drive us crazy alright …

 

[Reuben_J]

Of course there is, there are 7 of them. Can you point to a bishop today in a canonical Church that would deny the First Seven Ecumenical Councils? As the passage in Acts said, "For if their purpose or activity is of human origin, it will fail. But if it is from God, you will not be able to stop these men; you will only find yourselves fighting against God.”

I am not very sure here Constantine,but I thought the seventh, if that was the Council of Trullo, it was not accepted by the Catholic Church. It may be for the Orthodox but not Catholic Church, I think.

Here is the 21 Ecumenical Councils of the Catholic Church;
newadvent.org/library/almanac_14388a.htm

 

[dzheremi]

No, Reuben. I think you are in error in this case. Trullo is not among the councils counted as ecumenical by the EO. From Wikipedia’s page on the matter (here), they are listed as follows:

First Council of Nicaea (325)
First Council of Constantinople (381)
Council of Ephesus (431)
Council of Chalcedon (451)
Second Council of Constantinople (553)
Third Council of Constantinople (680)
Second Council of Nicaea (787)

The Nestorians do not accept anything after Constantinople (381), because it’s at Ephesus that Nestorius was condemned, and the Oriental Orthodox do not accept anything after Ephesus, because they do not accept the Tome of Leo as a statement of the Orthodox faith. (Though it’s not so much that we have problems with restoring icons or whatever, just that these issues did not affect us because we were no longer in union with the Byzantines, so we were not really affected by iconoclasm as they were.)

 

[Reuben_J]

No, Reuben. I think you are in error in this case. Trullo is not among the councils counted as ecumenical by the EO. From Wikipedia’s page on the matter (here), they are listed as follows:

First Council of Nicaea (325)
First Council of Constantinople (381)
Council of Ephesus (431)
Council of Chalcedon (451)
Second Council of Constantinople (553)
Third Council of Constantinople (680)
Second Council of Nicaea (787)

The Nestorians do not accept anything after Constantinople (381), because it’s at Ephesus that Nestorius was condemned, and the Oriental Orthodox do not accept anything after Ephesus, because they do not accept the Tome of Leo as a statement of the Orthodox faith. (Though it’s not so much that we have problems with restoring icons or whatever, just that these issues did not affect us because we were no longer in union with the Byzantines, so we were not really affected by iconoclasm as they were.)

Thank you very much dzheremi. :extrahappy::clapping:

I got into a bit of discussion about Trullo in the other thread and how I mentioned that it was not accepted by the Catholic Church. I wish it was not one of the Ecumenical Councils and thanks for that clarification because if it is not then we can say that we have nothing to do with it.

 

[ConstantineTG]

I am not very sure here Constantine,but I thought the seventh, if that was the Council of Trullo, it was not accepted by the Catholic Church. It may be for the Orthodox but not Catholic Church, I think.

Here is the 21 Ecumenical Councils of the Catholic Church;
newadvent.org/library/almanac_14388a.htm

The Seventh declared Iconoclasm to be a heresy. I would be surprised if the Roman Catholic Church rejected that council.

 

[Reuben_J]

The Seventh declared Iconoclasm to be a heresy. I would be surprised if the Roman Catholic Church rejected that council.

That is one of the Ecumenical Councils listed among the 21.

VII. SECOND COUNCIL OF NICAEA
Year: 787
Summary: The Second Council of Nicaea was convoked by Emperor Constantine VI and his mother Irene, under Pope Adrian I, and was presided over by the legates of Pope Adrian; it regulated the veneration of holy images. Between 300 and 367 bishops assisted.

I was under the impression that the Council of Trullo is purported to be the Seventh Ecumenical Council. Thanks God it is not, and as dzheremi said, also not in the OC list.

 

[Cavaradossi]

That is one of the Ecumenical Councils listed among the 21.

VII. SECOND COUNCIL OF NICAEA
Year: 787
Summary: The Second Council of Nicaea was convoked by Emperor Constantine VI and his mother Irene, under Pope Adrian I, and was presided over by the legates of Pope Adrian; it regulated the veneration of holy images. Between 300 and 367 bishops assisted.

I was under the impression that the Council of Trullo is purported to be the Seventh Ecumenical Council. Thanks God it is not, and as dzheremi said, also not in the OC list.

Where did you get the idea that we counted Trullo as the Seventh Ecumenical Council? I have not seen a single poster ever put forth that idea. Trullo, however, is canonically authoritative in the Orthodox Church.

 

[dzheremi]

I was under the impression that the Council of Trullo is purported to be the Seventh Ecumenical Council. Thanks God it is not, and as dzheremi said, also not in the OC list.

Well, I hate to be the burster of bubbles, but if you go to the Wikipedia page on the council, you find the following: “The Eastern Orthodox churches hold this council be part of the Fifth and Sixth Ecumenical Councils, adding its canons thereto.” I don’t know whether that’s the truth or not (one of our resident EO can confirm if they wish to), but I do know that they do at least hold to the council. Also interesting, according to that same page, the council was ratified at the Eighteenth Council of Toledo, the last to be held in Christian Spain before the invasion of the Moors, but that decision was later overturned by the king of Asturias, Fruela I, who was, by all accounts, kind of a jerk.

 

[Cavaradossi]

Well, I hate to be the burster of bubbles, but if you go to the Wikipedia page on the council, you find the following: “The Eastern Orthodox churches hold this council be part of the Fifth and Sixth Ecumenical Councils, adding its canons thereto.” I don’t know whether that’s the truth or not (one of our resident EO can confirm if they wish to), but I do know that they do at least hold to the council. Also interesting, according to that same page, the council was ratified at the Eighteenth Council of Toledo, the last to be held in Christian Spain before the invasion of the Moors, but that decision was later overturned by the king of Asturias, Fruela I, who was, by all accounts, kind of a jerk.

Yes. It is also understood that the first canon of the Seventh Ecumenical Council instructing us to hold fast to the sacred canons, includes the canons of Trullo, of the Ecumenical Councils, and of all local synods and canons of the fathers approved by Trullo (Canon 2 of Trullo, which contains this list, was simply elaborating on Canon 1 of Chalcedon, which rather vaguely states that, “We have judged it right that the canons of the Holy Fathers made in every synod even until now, should remain in force,” without explaining which synods ought to be included).

 

[Reuben_J]

Where did you get the idea that we counted Trullo as the Seventh Ecumenical Council? I have not seen a single poster ever put forth that idea. Trullo, however, is canonically authoritative in the Orthodox Church.

It does not matter. I was just trying to gauge its importance in the ascending scale. I have no problem if it is for the Orthodox Church only, so let be it. It is just for the Orthodox Church only. That is what I want to know and clarified. And I must tell you, I am perfectly happy with it.

 

[Reuben_J]

Well, I hate to be the burster of bubbles, but if you go to the Wikipedia page on the council, you find the following: “The Eastern Orthodox churches hold this council be part of the Fifth and Sixth Ecumenical Councils, adding its canons thereto.” I don’t know whether that’s the truth or not (one of our resident EO can confirm if they wish to), but I do know that they do at least hold to the council. Also interesting, according to that same page, the council was ratified at the Eighteenth Council of Toledo, the last to be held in Christian Spain before the invasion of the Moors, but that decision was later overturned by the king of Asturias, Fruela I, who was, by all accounts, kind of a jerk.

It is OK dzheremi , I am not going to go into the details of the Orthodox and its Ecumenical Council. I am willing to let it go a long time already, if it is mentioned that the Ecumenical Councils is from the Orthodox’s understanding. Perhaps this is the first time (both Orthodox threads) that I am engaging in topic about the Orthodox. I am basically interested in the topic of Christian marriage and how each denomination practices it as opposed to the Catholic marriage.