N
Nicea325
Guest
I should have been more precise. What I meant was the first 7 ecumenical councils both West & East accept?
- Status
M
Mark_of_Ephesus
Guest
I am not quite sure I understand what you are asking. Are you asking if an Ecumenical Council has ever compromised truth? In that case, no. Ecumenical Councils have only defended the truth. It is worth pointing out, however, that only a small minority of Church councils are called “ecumenical”. A conciliar gathering is by no means an assurance that Truth will be preserved and defended.
N
Nicea325
Guest
Yes that is what I was asking: if an Ecumenical Council has ever compromised truth?
Yes I do know that only a small % of church councils are called ecumenical.
C
Cavaradossi
Guest
I fail to see what this has to do with ecumenism, which at its heart involves minimizing differences instead of recognizing that they exist. The councils which we now designate as ecumenical never did such a thing.
D
Digitonomy
Guest
I am curious about the phrase “Great and Holy Council.” I realize it’s a term of art for an ecumenical council. I’m curious whether other councils use similar terms in a heirarchical ranking - are there any great councils which aren’t holy, or are there any holy councils which aren’t great?
N
Nicea325
Guest
Because someone stated ecumenism will compromise the Truth,which is why I asked,what I asked.
Peace.
C
Contarini
Guest
That’s a caricature of ecumenism. Ecumenism doesn’t deny that differences exist, but it starts from our common baptism and our common faith in Christ and affirms that this common faith is more important than the differences. Most opponents of ecumenism, in my opinion, seem unable to explain just why the specific differences in question are so important. They seem committed to magnifying differences just in order to avoid being “ecumenical.” On the whole, I find ecumenical Christians to be far more seriously committed to understanding the historical contexts and theological implications of intra-Christian differences. But admittedly, I’ve known some really good examples of ecumenical Christianity, such as Prof. Geoffrey Wainwright of Duke. There’s certainly a lot of thoughtless, fuzzy ecumenism out there as well.
Edwin
C
Contarini
Guest
Not with demonstrative certainty, indeed, but I can say it with reasonable confidence.
If they wouldn’t leave over the many differences they already have with Rome, they wouldn’t leave over union with Orthodoxy. Union with Orthodoxy would quite likely strengthen the elements in Rome that would cause them to leave, so indirectly it might contribute, but it wouldn’t be the direct and immediate trigger.they could start a liberal faction…or join the Episcopalians.
Right. My point is that the only reason I am not Orthodox is my rejection of the exclusivity of Orthodox claims, not my rejection of any other Orthodox beliefs or practices.
Well, you “real Orthodox” would just say that the people who “compromised” weren’t really Orthodox. So this is the “no true Scotsman fallacy”!
And I’m not sure how you explain away the fact that many of the major Councils you recognize involved compromise. That is to say, they came up with language designed to allay the concerns of various conflicting groups, sometimes including groups that had earlier been condemned as heretical. Chalcedon and 1 Constantinople are the most obvious examples. Chalcedon “compromises” with the Nestorians by coming up with language ('two natures") that addresses their concerns about humanity being swallowed up in divinity. This causes the staunch defenders of Orthodoxy-as-defined-by-1-Ephesus (and no, I’m not confusing 1 Ephesus with the “Robber Synod”) to reject the Council (and thus be rejected by you as “not Orthodox,” even though their fault was to reject a compromise that seemed to betray earlier Church teaching). 1 Constantinople attempted “compromise” with these same Monophysites, and again, was opposed by some on those grounds. Your interpretation of the Councils as steadfastly rejecting “compromise” is only possible if you define compromise after the fact–i.e., obviously the Councils didn’t compromise the faith that eventually emerged from them. Nor am I claiming that they compromised the faith that preceded them, only that they compromised the language of earlier formulations for the sake of explaining that faith more clearly–just as modern ecumenists wish to do.
I’m aware of that account, and it is wonderful. I have certainly read accounts of the uncreated energies–I simply don’t claim to have seen them myself.
Edwin
M
Mickey
Guest
As opposed to you “real episcopalians”.
I cannot recall any compromises with the heterodox during those seven Great Councils…
Oh please.
Your interpretation of the Councils as steadfastly accepting “compromise” with heretics is only possible if you define compromise after the fact.
They did not compromise the faith…period.
Are you sure?
C
Contarini
Guest
Depends on what you mean. I would say quite the reverse–that ecumenical Western Christians would without exception accept the validity of hesychasm and regard it as one of the greatest of the many wonderful things that you “Eastern” Orthodox have to offer the rest of us.
Well, that’s terrible, but it’s a reason to promote ecumenism, since generally non-Orthodox Christians (I mean, of course, those of us who know something about Orthodoxy and wish for union with you–most non-Orthodox Christians are simply ignorant of your traditions) are fascinated by hesychasm and agree with you that it’s the spiritual core of your tradition. If your own clergy don’t see this, perhaps you need us to help you persuade them
.So by “an attack on hesychasm” you really mean “an attack on the claim that hesychasts are the only ones truly experiencing God.”
Fair enough. That’s a consistent position.
Right. But you start out with the assumption that not being Orthodox constitutes “bad fruit” in the first place.
By teaching the truth and letting the Holy Spirit work?
Well, I can’t accept that claim–at least, I can’t accept your claim to know this. As someone who grew up Protestant, I came to appreciate Catholicism and Orthodoxy through rejecting the easy cop-out which would say that the saints of both traditions were somehow deluded (at least insofar as they taught things that I had been told to reject). When I saw what seemed to be genuine piety, I took it seriously. I understand cradle Catholics and Orthodox being exclusive–I have a lot more trouble understanding how converts “switch off” the spiritual open-mindedness that was necessary for them to entertain the claims of their “new” faith in the first place! And yet it often seems to be converts who push exclusive claims most ferociously.
Edwin
M
Mickey
Guest
As opposed to you “real episcopalians”.
I cannot recall any compromises with the heterodox during those seven Great Councils…
Oh please.
Your interpretation of the Councils as steadfastly accepting “compromise” with heretics is only possible if you define compromise after the fact.
They did not compromise the faith…period.
Are you sure?
M
Mickey
Guest
Switching off spiritual open-mindedness???
H
hazcompat
Guest
His light is better than life.
peace
peace
H
hazcompat
Guest
For “through the Holy Spirit every soul is quickened, and through its purification, it is exalted and illumined by the Triune Unity in a Holy mystery.” The Holy Spirit Himself settles in our souls, and this occupation of our souls by Him, the All-Ruling, and this coexistence of our spirit with His One Trinity, is granted only through the diligent acquiring, on our part, of the Holy Spirit, which prepares, in our soul and body, the throne for the coexistence of God the All-Creator with our spirit, by the immutable word of God: “And I will walk among you and will be your God, and ye shall be my people” (Lev. 26:12).
fatheralexander.org/bookl…phim_e.htm#n23
peace
fatheralexander.org/bookl…phim_e.htm#n23
peace
C
Contarini
Guest
I’m not sure what you mean. I don’t claim to be a “real Episcopalian” as opposed to others who aren’t. I don’t care about being a “real Episcopalian,” or for that matter about being Episcopalian at all, except insofar as it means being part of a local community and in fellowship with other particular communities, and particular communities matter. The “Episcopalian” label does not matter to me. The Nicene Creed matters. The universal Church of all the baptized matters. Apostolic succession matters. For that matter, the See of Rome matters as a particular community with a special role within the Church.As opposed to you “real episcopalians”.
Look, it depends on how you define compromise. The Monophysites certainly thought that Chalcedon constituted a compromise with the Nestorians.
I’m not defining compromise after the fact. That’s exactly what I’m not doing. I’m defining compromise in terms of the positions that the opposing sides brought to the Councils in the first place.
Edwin
M
Mickey
Guest
C
Contarini
Guest
Yes. You only convert to something because you are willing to find truth where you had not thought it existed.Switching off spiritual open-mindedness???
I don’t see how you just stop doing that. It seems weird and twisted to me. But lots of people do it, and perhaps they are wiser than I. May God bless all of you anyway!
Edwin
M
Mickey
Guest
Willing to find? :ehh:
C
Contarini
Guest
Each side comes into a theological dispute with certain theological principles they want to maintain. The Christological disputes are a particularly good example of this.One side rightly wanted to maintain the integrity of Jesus’ humanity lest it be swallowed up in divinity–the other rightly wanted to maintain the paradox of the Incarnation in which the Word truly takes on flesh and does not simply unite itself morally with a human being.Actually, I’m not sure what you are attempting to relate.
The process by which Christological orthodoxy was formed was one of compromise–not in the sense of either side giving up truth, but in the sense of each side recognizing the validity of the other’s concerns and seeking language that reflected those concerns.
Modern ecumenism is no different. The idea that ecumenism is about compromising truth is inaccurate, slanderous nonsense and people of integrity and good will ought to stop repeating it.
Ecumenism is about compromise only in the sense that the orthodox Councils involved compromise–finding language that reflects the valid concerns of the “other side” while not compromising the truth that has been revealed to one’s own “side”; or, with regard to practice, tolerating differences in custom when those differences can be discerned to embody the same truth.
Edwin
M
Mickey
Guest
It was a matter of truth…not compromise.
It is very different. It is often heretical.
…Orthodox participation in the Ecumenical Movement has degenerated more and more into an anarchical, truth-despising and canon-despising activity. As such, it cannot but have the strong condemnation of it by enlightened, pious Orthodox Christians. For they take their Faith with the greatest seriousness, regarding it as the only Truth—the Truth that leads to salvation.
(Dr. Constantine Cavarnos, “Fr. Georges Florovsky on Ecumenism,” p. 15)
- Status