But we (Latins) do. We have full-press Ecumenical Councils (just as the Church held before the Schism), not just various scattered provincial councils. Why do you suppose that is?
Instead of just popcorn (yum) I guess I’ll intervene a little. I’m not sure why you keep saying we lost authority to define doctrine? As far as history is concerned we just never had a need to have another ecumenical council. If there was, then orthodoxy would currently be infiltrated by theological heresies, since fighting back heresies is one of the main reasons ecumenical councils are so important. However the Vatican says we are only in schism, not heresy, so clearly that alone should indicate we have been able to keep the Orthodox faith. The local councils have been sufficient themselves in dealing with any issues so far. And who knows, maybe the 2016 council could be recognized as ecumenical eventually
.The idea that the Orthodox do not claim the authority to define ‘universal doctrine’ is false. You conflate the teaching of doctrine with the holding of ecumenical councils. The only reason why the Ecumenical Councils were ever called in the first place was because some issue which could not be resolved at the local level was threatening the unity of the Christian Ecumene (also I must remark that since the post-schism Latin councils happened outside of the structure of the Christian Ecumene, it is very hard to take the claim that they were ‘ecumenical’ seriously). The primary source of doctrine is the bishop and the local synod, and only in extraordinary circumstances is an ecumenical council involved. Indeed many heresies have sprung up since the schism happened, but they were all solved on a local level, meaning that calling an ecumenical council has so far been unnecessary.
Not the Catholic Church. It was only well after the fact that the so called Ecumenical councils of the West were relabeled ‘Ecumenical’, and most of them have very little in common with the seven Ecumenical councils held before the schism. If they did, it would suggest that the West was reeling from one heresy after another since separating from the East, but so far I’ve never heard any Catholic admit to such a thing
Some were later granted ecumenical status. Some like Florence, Lyon II, Trent and the two Vatican councils were ecumenical from the get go.
So you are saying that the West was so rife with heresies and divisions that during the second millennium they required almost double the number of Ecumenical Councils which were required to maintain a unified Christian Ecumene in the first millennium?
No the Vatican says you’re as schismatics because it is from schism that your errors are held. The church has always taught that the “Greeks” have certain errors (rejection of Primacy, filioque, purgatory etc). The reason you are called schismatics is because it is from your schism that your errors became solidified, rather than it being your errors which lead you into schism (Which would make you be branded heretics)
I don’t see how you can argue that when you yourself admitted just now that ecumenical councils can later be recognized as such. Perhaps they are in fact ecumenical, but have not yet been properly shown forth as such.
You seem not to have read much of what “the church has taught” because it has always been rather varied and is definitely a far more nuanced issue than you present. Historically, some have taken the attitude which you take, which is that the Orthodox are heretical in some of their teachings, but many others have taken the attitude that the separation was primarily due to a series of doctrinal misunderstandings such that the doctrines taught by the Greeks were true, but that how the Greeks understood Latin doctrines was inaccurate, such that even though they condemned the Filioque, they affirmed it with the affirmation of the formula procedit ex patre per filium (this is even the position of Thomas Aquinas, who alleged, perhaps out of frustration, that the Greeks only rejected the filioque out of obstinacy), and even though they condemned purgatory as an innovation because some taught that purgatory was a place with an actual purgatorial fire, neither of these common teachings were an essential part of the doctrine of purgatory (hence Florence did not proclaim that either of these two things were essential to purgatory). Even as late as the 20th century, Adrian Fortescue argued for this position (even after the First Vatican Council), and even in these contemporary times, people have argued (and I have read such arguments) that the Orthodox only reject Papal Infallibility because they do not fully understand it, but not because what they teach is doctrinally opposed to it.
Satan got very vicious in the second millenium. Further since the church existed in the west it just ur Esther due such councils to be held
Hotbed of schism in the period of 1100 - 1500. Not so much after. The reason was attempted political interference with church affairs. Heresy not so much as you can see very few of the councils were convened for heretical controversies like the first millenium. The east in the first millenium was unparalleled in its origination of major heresies which constantly threatened the unity of the church.Sounds like the geographic West must have been a real hotbed of disunity and heresy in those times. I’ll remember that the next time somebody claims the same of the East in the first millennium
Ambitious and errenous. The reason you were called schismatics is because of the definition of schism, thats how the schism started. Not really for any doctrinal disagreement. In time the Greeks started holding various positions especially and primarily against the roman primacy and its understanding of said primacy. The Greeks had always been referred to as holding errors.
So you mean to tell me that many of those doctrinal canons in the second millennium were drawn up just for fun rather than to combat any heresies?
Arrogant and incorrigible (see, I can throw out adjectives with no context too). Since you have provided no further argument than what you originally offered, I will not waste more time rewriting my own rebuttals or creating new ones, but I shall only reiterate that you are demonstrably wrong.
Most of them combat small heresies. This was not uncommon to the first millenium. Small heresies in certain areas always existed. I’m talking about major heresies that threatened the unity of the church, very few of the post schism councils were called for such matters.
Lol I challenge anyone to read the writings and documents of the past, and see how often you see the Greeks associated with errors in said documents and writings. It is unanimous. Only a man devoid of intellectual honesty would maintain that the opposite is true. The saints speak. The Church spoke.
Good tactic, keep it vague so that nobody can challenge you. Since one concrete piece of evidence is better than an entire corpus of unnamed works, I shall point out that Adrian Fortescue wrote in his the article ‘Eastern Schism’ in the old Catholic Encyclopedia, ‘there is not really any question of doctrine involved. It is not a heresy, but a schism.’ Perhaps Adrian Fortescue was ‘devoid of intellectual honesty’? Or maybe perhaps you should tone down your stale and overwrought attempts at polemics. It really only comes off as rather childish.
Cute. Lets start with Ex Quo of Pope St.Pius X which is a document on the reunion with the Eastern Churches and declaring and exposing various grave errors including those held by the “Greek schismatics”