dogmatic teaching in the Orthodox church

[Luvs2Learn]

The way I understand the teaching of the Orthodox church is this:
1: In order for a council to be declared ecumenical it has be be accepted by all of the Patriarchs ans Bishops. It must must then be accepted by the the lay persons.

Here is the question:
If all of the Orthodox bishops hold a council and agree on something how likely is it in **todays society **for the Lay Orthodox to agree with the opinion of all of their Bishops?

 

[SingleMomMonica]

The way I understand the teaching of the Orthodox church is this:
1: In order for a council to be declared ecumenical it has be be accepted by all of the Patriarchs ans Bishops. It must must then be accepted by the the lay persons.

Here is the question:
If all of the Orthodox bishops hold a council and agree on something how likely is it in **todays society **for the Lay Orthodox to agree with the opinion of all of their Bishops?

Not really because at least 2 Patriarchs were condemned in Ecumenical Council. The Roman Patriarch and the Patriarch of Constantinople. This was determined by Ecumenical Council and the Holy Spirit led them in the decision and the Holy Spirit led the people, laity, to accept it.

If the need should ever arise for another Ecumenical Council then the Holy Spirit will led the members of the Council and will led the people to accept it. There was at least one Council that the Orthodox Church attended that was not needed nor was it inspired by the Holy Spirit and it was rejected by the people & by the Church, the Council of Florence. The Holy Spirit will guide the Church in every era. Just as Jesus promised.

The Title of the thread made me think you wanted to know where Orthodox teaching is found. It is found in the prayers of the Church…even in the way we hold our hands in making the sign of the cross…it is found in the Liturgies of the Church. We believe what we pray and pray what we believe.

 

[Luvs2Learn]

My o.p. question arose from a recent thread I read in a different forum regarding an upcomminbg synod involving all the Orthodox Patriarchs. I don’t don’t if this is for real of just huff puff, but I was curiouse how this next “council” could become “ecumenical”? and how long woiuld that take?

 

[Lancer]

Not really because at least 2 Patriarchs were condemned in Ecumenical Council.** The Roman Patriarch** and the Patriarch of Constantinople. This was determined by Ecumenical Council and the Holy Spirit led them in the decision and the Holy Spirit led the people, laity, to accept it.

If the need should ever arise for another Ecumenical Council then the Holy Spirit will led the members of the Council and will led the people to accept it. There was at least one Council that the Orthodox Church attended that was not needed nor was it inspired by the Holy Spirit and it was rejected by the people & by the Church, the Council of Florence. The Holy Spirit will guide the Church in every era. Just as Jesus promised.

The Title of the thread made me think you wanted to know where Orthodox teaching is found. It is found in the prayers of the Church…even in the way we hold our hands in making the sign of the cross…it is found in the Liturgies of the Church. We believe what we pray and pray what we believe.

I know this is your teaching/understanding…but I do not believe that it was the Holy Spirit who led your Council and your laity to condemn the Pope…

As far as if the need for another council arises…who is the Holy Spirit going to work through to call for it…Patriarch of Constantinople? …of Russia? Who has the authority to call for a council?..or is it a “joint declaration”?

Pax Christi

 

[Nine_Two]

It is unlikely any upcoming council will be declared Ecumenical, partially because there is the expectation that an Ecumenical Council deal with matters of doctrine, which this synod is unlikely to deal with.

However regardless of its status, the outcome will be added to Holy Tradition, just not as important as the declarations of an Ecumenical Council.

 

[SingleMomMonica]

I know this is your teaching/understanding…but I do not believe that it was the Holy Spirit who led your Council and your laity to condemn the Pope…

As far as if the need for another council arises…who is the Holy Spirit going to work through to call for it…Patriarch of Constantinople? …of Russia? Who has the authority to call for a council?..or is it a “joint declaration”?

Pax Christi

No one is suggesting that you believe. No one would expect a non-Orthodox Christian to believe. But that Ecumenical Council which condemned the Pope Honorius is accepted by the Catholic Church. The Papal Legits attending and participated in the vote to condemn him & his teachings. The Catholic Church accepts it was the Holy Spirit that directed that Ecumenical Council in Truth. You don’t have to believe it if you don’t want to. There are many “Cafeteria Catholics” and you can choose to be one of them if you like. When I was a Catholic, I believed the Church, I never had a desire to be a “Cafeteria Catholic”, but that’s just me. You are free.

In the past, each of the Ecumenical Councils were called by the Roman Emperor/Empress. Since the Christian beliefs or rather heresies are not tearing apart the known world’s Empire, I really don’t see how or why an Ecumenical Council would ever be called.

There are often synods which come together. Some of the synods include pan-Orthodox representatives. I guess I just don’t see what the big deal is.

 

[josephdaniel29]

I know this is your teaching/understanding…but I do not believe that it was the Holy Spirit who led your Council and your laity to condemn the Pope…

I wouldn’t expect you to.

As far as if the need for another council arises…who is the Holy Spirit going to work through to call for it

The Holy Spirit can work through whomever He chooses, He is God after all.

Who has the authority to call for a council?..or is it a “joint declaration”?

Pax Christi

If a council is needed a council happens. All of the Seven Ecumenical Councils were called by the emperor. Since there is no emperor it usually happens by consensus.

Yours in Christ
Joe

 

[dvdjs]

The way I understand the teaching of the Orthodox church is this:
1: In order for a council to be declared ecumenical it has be be accepted by all of the Patriarchs ans Bishops. It must must then be accepted by the the lay persons.

This is a puzzle (but hardly a problem) for the EO; the puzzle remains unaddressed here.

SMM raises Pope Honorious for reasons that are difficult to make sense of. Surely it is obvious that L2L did not mean to include the dead when asking about acceptance by “all” Patriarchs and bishops. If SMM is so eager to discuss the case of Honorius, then perhaps she might start a thread on which that case is relevant. Although it would probably be better just to link to all of the discussions already made; it’s not as though this case is a secret.

Also from SMM:

There was at least one Council that the Orthodox Church attended that was not needed nor was it inspired by the Holy Spirit and it was rejected by the people & by the Church, the Council of Florence.

This was brought up on another thread. And here, as there, the history is off.

In Constantinople the declaration of Union was controversial, but remained as the teaching of the Church until the Ottomans had assumed control, and chose to empower, as Patriarch, a bishop who had adopted the anti-union position.

As to Russia, here is something from the Indiana List, that I had asked another poster at CAF to look up. A certain poster wrote:

A historical fact-of-note:
When Metropolitan Isidore returned to Russia after the Council of Florence, where he signed for the Union with the Pope, it was the faithful, THE PEOPLE, of Russia that reacted to this betrayal! He was banished from Russia by the people. He had to run for his life. He was banished not by the Synod of bishops, but by the Russian people.

Bishop Tikhon, then Bishop of the OCADOW replied:

Not true. Metropolitan Isidore took some time travelling around when he got back from Florence. In Lithuania and Kiev the main reaction was to refuse to recognize him as a Cardinal or Roman legate, but “only” as the Metropolitan of Kiev and All Russia. He was in Kholm on the 27th of July, 1440. And when he finally got to Moscow, March 19, 1441, preceded by his notorious Latin cross, he went to the Kremlin and served Divine Liturgy in the presence of the Great Prince, the Bishops and clergy and the nobility and government sorts. At the Liturgy, instead of commemorating the Constantinopolitan Patriarch, he commemorated the Pope of Rome, Eugene. At the end of the Liturgy, he had his Protodeacon in Stikharion and Orarion go out on the Amvon and proclaim the Act of Union, signed on the 5th of July 1439. This means he joined the Unia in 1439. He came back to Russian territory one year after that, and travelled around for a couple years before this Liturgy in the Kremlin. After the Protodeacon got through, Isidore presented a personal letter from the Pope, asking him to help Isidore introduce the Union. Everybody was surprised: so much so, that not one boyar, prince, or bishop advised the Great Prince one word. The Prince didn’t know what to do either. He considered the matter all by himself for THREE days and finally, on the 4th day, he commanded that Isidore should be thrown into prison. With that, as the Chronicle goes, all the boyars and the bishops and the princes and the multitude of the people, suddenly recalled their Greek heritage, the docrines, the holy writings and began to call Isidore a heretic.

It seems obvious that after Isidore’s return from Florence more than a year before, there could have been no “shock” or horrified sudden reaction of the people. Contrary to what [the poster] wrote, it was the firm stand of no other than the Great Prince that was responsible for Isidore’s rejection. Isidore was “jailed” (house arrest) in the Chudov monastery, a small council condemned him as a heretic and sentenced him, but there began to be talk of a larger council that might condemn him to be burned at the stake. So Isidore “escaped” the night of 15 September 1441, and when the Prince heard it he commanded that he be not be pursued and allowed to flee. Now that shows that [the] claim that “the people” drove him out of Russia ([this] legend began in around the 17 century), is not a fact at all, let alone “A Historical Fact of Note.” “The People” did not banish Isidore. The Great Prince arrested him (eventually) and locked him up, condemned him, and let him escape and flee. Them’s the facts, folks.

See Volume Two, “Moscow Period from the Mongol Onslaught until Metropolitan Markary, Inclusive”, of Golubinski’s HISTORY OF THE RUSSIAN CHURCH.

Just in case anyone wants to adhere to facts.

 

[Nine_Two]

SMM raises Pope Honorious for reasons that are difficult to make sense of. Surely it is obvious that L2L did not mean to include the dead when asking about acceptance by “all” Patriarchs and bishops. If SMM is so eager to discuss the case of Honorius, then perhaps she might start a thread on which that case is relevant. Although it would probably be better just to link to all of the discussions already made; it’s not as though this case is a secret.

She was refering to Lancer’s comment saying he didn’t believe that the Council which anathematized a Pope was canonical, reminding him that even your church considers it such, and prior to that she was referencing the fact that Patriarchs of multiple churches had in the past been anathematized.

Get off your high horse and join the rest of us plebs on the ground.

 

[dvdjs]

She was refering to Lancer’s comment saying he didn’t believe that the Council which anathematized a Pope was canonical, reminding him that even your church considers it such, and prior to that she was referencing the fact that Patriarchs of multiple churches had in the past been anathematized.

No, not in the first instance. You may not have gotten the reference, but she had already broached the subject in post #2. Again, if you want to discuss this off-topic case, start a new thread or resurrect one of the numerous old ones.

 

[SingleMomMonica]

No, not in the first instance. You may not have gotten the reference, but she had already broached the subject in post #2. Again, if you want to discuss this off-topic case, start a new thread or resurrect one of the numerous old ones.

Nine Two was correct as to why I brought up that Pope by name.

In Post #2 I mentioned the fact that Ecumenical Councils have condemned Patriarchs (including Popes) because the OP had a misunderstanding that each Bishoop (including Patriarchs) had to agree to make a Council Ecumenical. It’s the Church as a whole that must accept, not specific individuals.

I’m not going to accuse you of anything, but you have been incorrect in your assumptions about me.

 

[mardukm]

I can’t wrap my head around this idea that the standard for knowing what is Truth is the agreement of the laity. The laity is supposed to look to her God-ordained teachers for Truth. But according to some EO here, it is the teachers who must look to the laity to determine what infallible Truth is.

I’ve never been a fan of the democratic theory of Church governance when it comes to the Divine Teaching of the Church. Scripture is clear that the office of teacher is given only to a few, and Tradition tells us that this office is the bishop’s. I reject this novel idea that the orthodoxy or infallibility of the Office of Teaching depends on the agreement of those who are supposed to be taught.

The laity certainly have a role in the preservation of the Truth, but it is not as judges of their God-ordained teachers the bishops. Only bishops can judge other bishops - that has been the ecclesiology of the Church from the beginning.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[SingleMomMonica]

I can’t wrap my head around this idea that the standard for knowing what is Truth is the agreement of the laity. The laity is supposed to look to her God-ordained teachers for Truth. But according to some EO here, it is the teachers who must look to the laity to determine what infallible Truth is.

I’ve never been a fan of the democratic theory of Church governance when it comes to the Divine Teaching of the Church. Scripture is clear that the office of teacher is given only to a few, and Tradition tells us that this office is the bishop’s. I reject this novel idea that the orthodoxy or infallibility of the Office of Teaching depends on the agreement of those who are supposed to be taught.

The laity certainly have a role in the preservation of the Truth, but it is not as judges of their God-ordained teachers the bishops. Only bishops can judge other bishops - that has been the ecclesiology of the Church from the beginning.

Blessings,
Marduk

Hi Marduk,

It’s the Holy Spirit that determines what the Truth is. Remember that in each of the heresies which were condemned by the Ecumenical Councils, the heresies had been started by a priest/bishop/Patriarch(Pope). When that happened the Emperor/Empress called an Ecumenical Council. The Holy Spirit led the Decisions of the Council and the last proof that this was done by the Holy Spiritis the acceptance by the Church (Faithful).

This method was used in Biblical times as described in Acts 15 and in each of the first 7 Ecumenical Councils accepted by the Church in Rome.

It’s neither new nor exclusive to Orthodoxy.

 

[dvdjs]

Nine Two was correct as to why I brought up that Pope by name.

In Post #2 I mentioned the fact that Ecumenical Councils have condemned Patriarchs (including Popes) because the OP had a misunderstanding that each Bishoop (including Patriarchs) had to agree to make a Council Ecumenical. It’s the Church as a whole that must accept, not specific individuals.

I am sorry, but in post #2, you did not mention, as you now claim, the condemnation of “Patriarchs (including Popes)”, rather you mentioned that “at least 2 Patriarchs were condemned in Ecumenical Council. The Roman Patriarch and the Patriarch of Constantinople.” One Pope. And the reference was clear, even if you did not name that Pope until later.

As to the relevance to the OP - there is no relevance. At the time of the council, he was long dead and obviously in no position either to accept or reject its findings.

What assumptions about you have I made?

 

[mardukm]

Dear sister SingleMomMonica,

It’s the Holy Spirit that determines what the Truth is. Remember that in each of the heresies which were condemned by the Ecumenical Councils, the heresies had been started by a priest/bishop/Patriarch(Pope). When that happened the Emperor/Empress called an Ecumenical Council. The Holy Spirit led the Decisions of the Council and the last proof that this was done by the Holy Spiritis the acceptance by the Church (Faithful).

First of all, two or three of the Ecumenical Councils were called by the Emperor at the instigation of the bishop of Rome. Secondly, I can agree with you that the the role of the laity is to be corroborative to the decisions of our God-ordained bishops, but in no way can I agree if you believe that the actions of the laity is to be determinative, as what occurred during Florence. Florence was not perfect, and there were certain things that needed to be addressed still, but what occurred among the Easterns during that period was an aberration from the Traditional ecclesiology of the Church.

This method was used in Biblical times as described in Acts 15 and in each of the first 7 Ecumenical Councils accepted by the Church in Rome.

I don’t see anything in the Bible to indicate that the laity can judge the decisions of the God-ordained Apostles, nor anything from the 7 Ecumenical councils that indicate the laity can judge the decisions of the God-ordained bishops.

It’s neither new nor exclusive to Orthodoxy.

I’m sorry, but the idea that the laity can have a determinative, instead of a corroborative, role in the establishment of the authority of an Ecumenical Council is a novelty of the Eastern Orthodox. Nothing in the history of the Church can validate your current ecclesiological theory. The closest thing I have heard and read from EO apologists is what occurred among the Alexandrians during the Council of Chalcedon. But a closer look at that episode evinces that the Alexandrians were supporting their God-ordained Patriarch, not repudiating him as the EO did to their bishops after Florence.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[dvdjs]

Dear sister SingleMomMonica,
The closest thing I have heard and read from EO apologists is what occurred among the Alexandrians during the Council of Chalcedon.

Therein lies the puzzle: if a lack of consent of the laity sufficed to repudiate Florence, then how can Chalcedon be considered ecumencial?

 

[marymol]

This good article on Pope Honorious may be a good gift , to celebrate the wisdom given to our Church - catholic.com/thisrock/1994/9409fea2.asp

As can be seen , the Pope did not err, even if the council did , in condemning him …

We have words of St.Paul , cautiong on same -

bible.cc/exodus/22-28.htm , about not cursing the ’ leader ’ of a people and even now , seemingly continuing to do so …and how sad it is , if this is the bad tradition that is still held onto …

’ They went by another way ’ is what we read about the Wise Men from The East …
after they heard the voice of the angel… …wisdom to move in light of the dangers and needs of the times …

Those Old Testment narratives , repeated often enough too , about the infallible authority given to Moses, to lead his people , esp. as seen at The Red Sea ; it was not a popular vote… . would they not have been back under the pagan king’s rule , if they had waited to do so …

Thank God that we can rejoice , that amidst the increasing cacophony of rivaling voices , those in His Sheepfold have been left with the assurance of a clear voice …and that 2000 years of history has been graciously given by Him , to look back on the marvel of same !

Peace and blessings !

 

[Harpazo]

I can’t wrap my head around this idea that the standard for knowing what is Truth is the agreement of the laity. The laity is supposed to look to her God-ordained teachers for Truth. But according to some EO here, it is the teachers who must look to the laity to determine what infallible Truth is.

I’ve never been a fan of the democratic theory of Church governance when it comes to the Divine Teaching of the Church. Scripture is clear that the office of teacher is given only to a few, and Tradition tells us that this office is the bishop’s. I reject this novel idea that the orthodoxy or infallibility of the Office of Teaching depends on the agreement of those who are supposed to be taught.

The laity certainly have a role in the preservation of the Truth, but it is not as judges of their God-ordained teachers the bishops. Only bishops can judge other bishops - that has been the ecclesiology of the Church from the beginning.

Blessings,
Marduk

Glory to Jesus Christ!

I think you misunderstand the Orthodox understanding. The Orthodox also reject receptionism, as far as I know. It is the faithful that corroborate with their hierarchs. All of the hierarchs at the False Council (I’m aware that the RCC believes otherwise) of Florence sacrificed Orthodoxy for heterodoxy, save one. This would be St. Mark of Ephesus. Keep in mind, that it is the entirety of the Church, not a select few that judge others.

From my understanding, the Orthodox are much more willing to divorce themselves from a bishop (or bishops) that alter the faith and/or practices handed down to us from the Apostles. Exempli gratia, the Orthodox would not have put up with the Novus Ordo Missae, even before all the silliness that resulted from it.

In Christ,
Andrew

 

[jimmy]

Therein lies the puzzle: if a lack of consent of the laity sufficed to repudiate Florence, then how can Chalcedon be considered ecumencial?

Because truth is neither determined by the bishops nor by the laity. In the Orthodox Church they have an organic understanding of the presence and action of the Holy Spirit in the Church. The Spirit acts through the whole Church, not just a few individuals. The history of the Church is in God’s hands and it will not fail but no individuals are infallible whether they are on their own or gathered together. Orthodoxy is associated with the presence of the Holy Spirit and consequently with holiness as well. It is through union with God that we have knowledge of the truth and so the closer we grow to God the more we will know Him. Consequently the only possibility of infallibility is in the saints, due to their relationship with God.

 

[Harpazo]

Because truth is neither determined by the bishops nor by the laity. In the Orthodox Church they have an organic understanding of the presence and action of the Holy Spirit in the Church. The Spirit acts through the whole Church, not just a few individuals. The history of the Church is in God’s hands and it will not fail but no individuals are infallible whether they are on their own or gathered together. Orthodoxy is associated with the presence of the Holy Spirit and consequently with holiness as well. It is through union with God that we have knowledge of the truth and so the closer we grow to God the more we will know Him. Consequently the only possibility of infallibility is in the saints, due to their relationship with God.

Very well stated. I agree with all of this.

In Christ,
Andrew