Development vs. innovation

[johnnykins]

Depends on who you talk to; Im presuming that the Orthodox would not view it as such, but Catholics such as myself, in fact, would. I believe this was talked about quite a bit earlier in this thread. As my understanding goes, the EO believe that the whole church, which the laity is certainly apart of, must accept the council for it to be Ecumenical. A belief that can not be backed by historical reality in the church of the first millenium.

God bless,

JJR

Actually there is no single standard applied by the Orthodox in determinig which councils are or are not ecumenical - it’s, in reality, a form of voluntarism. If the acceptance by the “whole church” is the touchstone - Chalcedon is certainly problematic, n’est-ce pas?

If the first millennium is the touchstone, one must wonder why and how the post-millennial Church lost the pre-millennial power and authority to define beliefs.

 

[JJR1453]

Actually there is no single standard applied by the Orthodox in determinig which councils are or are not ecumenical - it’s, in reality, a form of voluntarism. If the acceptance by the “whole church” is the touchstone - Chalcedon is certainly problematic, n’est-ce pas?

If the first millennium is the touchstone, one must wonder why and how the post-millennial Church lost the pre-millennial power and authority to define beliefs.

Agreed. Voluntarism through particularism

 

[bpbasilphx]

AMEN!!! This has always been my contention with Eastern Orthodoxy: a complete lack of development of docrine. That is quite unlike the Church of the ecumenical councils.

When you’re not going to change anything, what needs to develop?

 

[Volodymyr]

JJR1453:

The laity must accept the council for it to be Ecumenical. A belief that can not be backed by historical reality in the church of the first millenium.

Particularly pronouncements of Effesian Council and Second Nikeian Council were influenced not in small part by activity of Orthodox believers who believed in divinity of Christ and honor of title Mother of God and those later who worked to preserve Holy Icons even when emperors are killing them for having icons.

But perhaps we Orthodox are being foolish to think that the Laity of Church must accept a teaching of a Council. But we are at least consistent in this regard.

At 1439 Ferraro-Florentian Council final pronouncement Kyivan (Moskovian) Mitropolit Isidor and Susdal’ian bishop Avraam joined with Greek bishops frightened by advancing Turks and Latin bishops in document “Heavens Rejoice” announcing unia of East and West. However, when Isidor returns to Moskow, the Orthodox people of Rossia and Ukraina do NOT rejoice. This council is rejected by the faithful Orthodox laity. Isidor is sent to Monaster to repent but escapes finally to Poland.

This probably would never happen in West where now Ecumincal Council is simply a consultation assembly of Bishops to support positions of Bishop of Rome. It is most fortunate for these bishops that they do not have to defend their positions before such ardent believers like Orthodox faithful.

 

[Mickey]

Particularly pronouncements of Effesian Council and Second Nikeian Council were influenced not in small part by activity of Orthodox believers who believed in divinity of Christ and honor of title Mother of God and those later who worked to preserve Holy Icons even when emperors are killing them for having icons.

But perhaps we Orthodox are being foolish to think that the Laity of Church must accept a teaching of a Council. But we are at least consistent in this regard.

At 1439 Ferraro-Florentian Council final pronouncement Kyivan (Moskovian) Mitropolit Isidor and Susdal’ian bishop Avraam joined with Greek bishops frightened by advancing Turks and Latin bishops in document “Heavens Rejoice” announcing unia of East and West. However, when Isidor returns to Moskow, the Orthodox people of Rossia and Ukraina do NOT rejoice. This council is rejected by the faithful Orthodox laity. Isidor is sent to Monaster to repent but escapes finally to Poland.

This probably would never happen in West where now Ecumincal Council is simply a consultation assembly of Bishops to support positions of Bishop of Rome. It is most fortunate for these bishops that they do not have to defend their positions before such ardent believers like Orthodox faithful.

Amen.

St Mark of Ephesus pray for us!

 

[twf]

Yes, I don’t understand how Chalcedon, from an EO perspective, can be ecumenical. It was rejected by Alexandria and Antioch! (Two of five patriarchs). The EO seem to define “the whole Church” arbitrarily. The Catholic Church has always used the same standard down through the centuries:

With that church, because of its superior origin, all the churches must agree, that is, all the faithful in the whole world, and it is in her that the faithful everywhere have maintained the apostolic tradition" (St. Irenaeus, Against Heresies 3:3:2 [A.D. 189]).

On him [Peter] he builds the Church, and to him he gives the command to feed the sheep [John 21:17], and although he assigns a like power to all the apostles, yet he founded a single chair [cathedra], and he established by his own authority a source and an intrinsic reason for that unity. Indeed, the others were also what Peter was *, but a primacy is given to Peter, whereby it is made clear that there is but one Church and one chair. So too, all [the apostles] are shepherds, and the flock is shown to be one, fed by all the apostles in single-minded accord. If someone does not hold fast to this unity of Peter, can he imagine that he still holds the faith? If he [should] desert the chair of Peter upon whom the Church was built, can he still be confident that he is in the Church?" (St. Cyprian, The Unity of the Catholic Church 4; 1st edition [A.D. 251]). *

“In the city of Rome the episcopal chair was given first to Peter; the chair in which Peter sat, the same who was head—that is why he is also called Cephas ‘Rock’]—of all the apostles, the one chair in which unity is maintained by all. Neither do the apostles proceed individually on their own, and anyone who would [presume to]
set up another chair in opposition to that single chair would, by that very fact, be a schismatic and a sinner. . . . Recall, then, the origins of your chair, those of you who wish to claim for yourselves the title of holy Church” (St. Optatus, The Schism of the Donatists 2:2 [A.D. 367]).

“The church here is split into three parts, each eager to seize me for its own. . . . Meanwhile I keep crying, ‘He that is joined to the chair of Peter is accepted by me!’ . . . Therefore, I implore your blessedness [Pope Damasus I] . . . tell me by letter with whom it is that I should communicate in Syria” (St. Jerome, Letters 16:2 [A.D. 396]).

 

[Jordan_Francis]

I think the original post in this thread foolishly over-simplifies the question. It is a genuine point, from the Orthodox side, that many forces in the Church today use this very idea [development] to justify what the rest of us consider to be theological and liturgical abuses. Once we admit the organic nature of the Church, once we admit that doctrine develops we really are in danger of opening Aiolos’s bag of wind. So the Orthodox have good reason to be cautious. Let us not ridicule them, for they still stand in the truth. Just because a new dogma sheds new light does not mean that those who do not accept it are now left in the dark.

Nevertheless, and as I think someone pointed out, it is in my opinion that the Church of the early Councils clearly developed doctrine along certain lines.

Were I to disbelieve the development of doctrine, I would be a Protestant, not Orthodox, and probably even a Protestant of the non-Trinitarian variety.

 

[mardukm]

Dear brother Volodymyr,

Particularly pronouncements of Effesian Council and Second Nikeian Council were influenced not in small part by activity of Orthodox believers who believed in divinity of Christ and honor of title Mother of God and those later who worked to preserve Holy Icons even when emperors are killing them for having icons.

I do not understand what the role of the Laity was in these Councils, from your point of view. Can you explain some more? I know that the unrest of the laity sometimes is a CAUSE for a Council to be called, but I don’t know of a single instance when the Laity was involved in the doctrinal decisions of an Ecumenical Council in the first Millenium.

But perhaps we Orthodox are being foolish to think that the Laity of Church must accept a teaching of a Council. But we are at least consistent in this regard.

Catholics also believe that the Laity must accept the teaching of an Ecumenical Council. But they accept it as a flock accepts the teaching of the Shepherds, not as judges of the Shepherds. Each individual, of course, must use their God-given free will and intelligence to accept the decisions of the Councils.

Blessings,
Marduk

P.S. This is probably not the place to discuss this topic (role of the Laity in Ecumenical Councils). Actually, I think this specific topic is being discussed in the Apologetics Forum in the thread (sadly) entitled “Why is the EO false?” Perhaps we can continue discussion about it there.

 

[Volodymyr]

Catholics also believe that the Laity must accept the teaching of the Shepherds,Marduk

I think this specific topic is being discussed in the Apologetics Forum in the thread (sadly) entitled “Why is the EO false?” Perhaps we can continue discussion about it there.

I am sure that problem is my poor English - I do not understand otherwise what is cause misunderstanding. Faithful laity are not outside of Church -are the Church. Certainly modern events have shown that Fiath Laity is most important in decisions of Latin Church:

Modern Mass Paul VI is now allowed to be replaced with Traditionalist Mass because of desire of faithful Laity.

Immoral priests and bishops are given over to local penal authorities because of pressure of Faithful Laity - and also those injured by such clerics.

Faithful laity continue to make pilgrims to sites not approved by bishops such as Meduhorije so Catolic bishop of such place cannot suppress or deny.

I here am not trying to make fun of problems of your Church - only to point out that all pronoucements of clergy are pointless if not accepted by faithful of church.

 

[JJR1453]

I here am not trying to make fun of problems of your Church - only to point out that all pronoucements of clergy are pointless if not accepted by faithful of church.

I see a very skewed and distorted view of the Church here. Perhaps it is clarification I should be seeking from you but I can only discern through your words that you somehow view the acceptance by the flock as paramount to the orthodoxy of the guidance of the shepards of the flock?? Bizarre indeed…

Although it is possible, albeit an utmost remote possibility, for the entire laity to not accept orthodox doctrine as pronounced by the shepards of the church, this would only mean that in doing so the laity will have, consequently, cut themselves off from the communion of the Church where the gates of hell shall not prevail.

God bless,

JJR

 

[chrisb]

I have only this to say: to those who rail against so-called “innovations”, get off your high horses. The Church is supposed to be alive - ergo, growth. As the united Church is the pillar and foundation of truth, it can do no wrong in teaching. Conversely, if people want to stay frozen in carbonite, be our guest.

There is a healthy perseverance which exists within the Body of Christ. This perseverance to Holy Tradition repeals errors, heresies, and straying from the consensual teachings of the Fathers. The Church maintains it’s form against the cancers that would deform and eventually challenge it’s health. It is true that the Church is alive but for the purpose of preserving the Faith handed down but the Apostles not for the innovations that causes the consensual teachings to be twisted and distorted until it no longer resembles the Body of Christ.

Peace.

 

[JJR1453]

There is a healthy perseverance which exists within the Body of Christ. This perseverance to Holy Tradition repeals errors, heresies, and straying from the consensual teachings of the Fathers. The Church maintains it’s form against the cancers that would deform and eventually challenge it’s health. It is true that the Church is alive but for the purpose of preserving the Faith handed down but the Apostles not for the innovations that causes the consensual teachings to be twisted and distorted until it no longer resembles the Body of Christ.

Peace.

Hello Chrisb!

Glory be to God! The Catholic church believes the same exact thing! However, the Catholic church also believes in a church that has an existing authority that can deal with controversies of the day. Of course these orthodox pronouncements are always held within the apostolic deposit of faith.

God bless,

JJR