Eastern Orthodox and Ecumenical Councils

  • Thread starter Thread starter ChristIsTheWay
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
C

ChristIsTheWay

Guest
I am wondering if our Eastern Orthodox members can explain to me what the Eastern Orthodox Church believes is required for an authoritative, binding ecumenical council. Thanks. 🙂
 
I’m not 100% sure what you’re asking The truth is the truth and the Church has always held the truth. If anyone says anything not in harmony with what the Church has always held then it is not true.
 
josephdaniel29 said:
Huh? :confused:
Click to expand...
How do you determine when an ecumenical council is true? It is my understanding that the EO accept the first seven councils but none of the subsequent councils. I’m just trying to understand what makes a council, from the EO perspective, binding and authoritative. You say that it has to be true but how is that determined? Am I making sense? :confused:
 
josephdaniel29 said:
I’m not 100% sure what you’re asking The truth is the truth and the Church has always held the truth. If anyone says anything not in harmony with what the Church has always held then it is not true.
Click to expand...
How is that decided, especially in regards to a church council like the ecumenical councils?
 
ChristIsTheWay said:
How do you determine when an ecumenical council is true? It is my understanding that the EO accept the first seven councils but none of the subsequent councils. I’m just trying to understand what makes a council, from the EO perspective, binding and authoritative. You say that it has to be true but how is that determined? Am I making sense? :confused:
Click to expand...
Here are a couple of paragraphs from Fr Sergius Bulgakov’s The Orthodox Church. He explains it far better than I ever could. I also understand that some of these answers are not particularly satisfying and for that I apologize. Here Fr Sergius talks about councils. In his terminology “true council” means an authoritative council.

These assemblies can demonstrate the conciliarity of the Church and become, consequently, true councils. Then, conscious of their true conciliarity and at the same time seeking it, the councils say of themselves: “It has pleased the Holy Spirit (who lives in the Church) and us.” They consider themselves as identical with the Church where the Holy Spirit lives. Every ecclesiastical assembly expresses in its prayer the desire to become a council. But all ecclesiastical assemblies are not councils, however much they pretend to be or fulfill the exterior conditions requisite to that end, for example, the pseudo-councils of Ephesus, the iconoclastic council of 754, the council of Florence, which the Orthodox Church does not recognize as councils. It must be remembered that even ecumenical councils are not external organs established for the infallible proclamation of the truth and instituted expressly for that. Such a proposition would lead to the conclusion that, without councils, the Church would cease to be “catholic” and infallible. Apart from this consideration, the mere idea of an external organ to proclaim the truth would place that organ above the Church, it would subordinate the action of the Holy Spirit to an external fact, such as an ecclesiastical assembly. Only the Church in its identity with itself can testify to the truth and the knowledge of conciliarity. Is a given assembly of bishops really a council of the Church which testifies in the name of the Church, to the truth of the Church? Only the Church can know. It is the Church which pronounces its yes. It is the Church which agrees, or not, with the council. There are not, and there cannot be, external forms established beforehand for the testimony of the Church about itself.

The life of the Church is a miracle which cannot be explained by external factors. The Church recognizes or does not recognize a given ecclesiastical assembly representing itself as a council: this is a known historical fact. Another historical fact is that to be accepted by the Church as such, it is not sufficient for an ecclesiastical assembly to proclaim itself as a council. It is not a question of a juridical and formal acceptance. This does not mean that the decisions of the councils should be confirmed by a general plebiscite and that without such a plebiscite they have no force. There is no such plebiscite. But from historical experience it clearly appears that the voice of a given council has truly been the voice of the Church or it has not: that is all. There are not, there cannot be, external organs or methods of testifying to the internal evidence of the Church; this must be admitted frankly and resolutely. Anyone who is troubled by this lack of external evidence for ecclesiastical truth does not believe in the Church and does not truly know it. The action of the Holy Spirit in the Church is an unfathomable mystery which fulfils itself in human acts and human consciousness. The ecclesiastical fetishism which seeks an oracle speaking in the name of the Holy Spirit and which finds it in the person of a supreme hierarch, or in the Episcopal order and its assemblies — this fetishism is a terrible symptom of half-faith.
 
Here is a link to The Orthodox Church online, specifically the chapter on the hierarchy which covers in great detail the question you have. Scroll down to the section titled The Infallibility of the Church. 🙂

Link
 
Thank you. 🙂

I think I am getting a better understanding of the issue but it is still somewhat confusing.
 
So when it is says “is a given assembly of bishops really a council of the Church which testifies in the name of the Church, to the truth of the Church? Only the Church can know. It is the Church which pronounces its yes. It is the Church which agrees, or not, with the council,” is it talking about the assent of the faithful to a council? That is, if a group of bishops gathering together with the intent of being an ecumenical council but the conclusions are rejected by some of the faithful, like the Council of Florence was rejected in the East, it is not an authoritative council in the eyes of the EOC?
 
ChristIsTheWay said:
So when it is says “is a given assembly of bishops really a council of the Church which testifies in the name of the Church, to the truth of the Church? Only the Church can know. It is the Church which pronounces its yes. It is the Church which agrees, or not, with the council,” is it talking about the assent of the faithful to a council? That is, if a group of bishops gathering together with the intent of being an ecumenical council but the conclusions are rejected by some of the faithful, like the Council of Florence was rejected in the East, it is not an authoritative council in the eyes of the EOC?
Click to expand...
No, he’s not talking about the assent of the faithful per se. He’s talking about the acceptance or non-acceptance of the Church which is composed of all of her members, clergy, monastics and laity together. The manner in which the Church receives a council or not is a mysterious, charismatic event. There are no votes, it’s not based on majority rule. The Holy Spirit simply guides the Church as promised.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top