Is the Pan Orthodox Counncil an ecumenical council?

  • Thread starter Thread starter iceloveslitt
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
I

iceloveslitt

Guest
Can the EO Churches conduct a binding Ecumenical council without the Bishop pf Rome? Can The Church of Rome and theEO achieve unity?
 
It isn’t an Ecumenical Council from a Catholic perspective. I won’t speak for the Orthodox…though I believe in the end some of the Orthodox Churches boycotted the Council.
From what I’ve read, the Russian Church has not acknowledged the Council to be “ecumenical” or universally binding… and as the Russian Church comprises more Orthodox Christians than all of the other Churches combined, that means something.
 
No, not at all. The Eastern Orthodox don’t consider it an ecumenical council, why should we?
 
iceloveslitt said:
Can The Church of Rome and theEO achieve unity?
Click to expand...
Unity requires correct doctrine. The EO formally adopted Neoplatonism as their theology at a series of councils in Constantinople in the 14th Century that declared:

“That supremely Divine light is neither a created thing, nor the essence of God, but is rather uncreated and natural grace, illumination, and energy which everlastingly and inseparably proceeds from the very essence of God.”

“There is an unconfused union of God’s essence and energy, so is there also an undivided distinction between them, for, among other things, essence is cause while energy is effect, essence suffers no participation, while energy is communicable; to them, therefore, who profess such impieties.”

johnsanidopoulos.com/2010/02/synodicon-of-orthodoxy.html

These statements are irreconcilable with Roman Catholic dogma that God is His attributes, and that God is one absolutely simple essence.
 
The essence-energies understanding of God as opposed to God as pure act isn’t in any practical way a barrier to restoration of full communion. By far the greatest barrier is the role of the Bishop of Rome. In all my years of reading and discussions concerning ecumenical dialogue (including those with one of the leading figures of the ecumenical movement), I never encountered this difference as anything other than a matter of historical curiosity.
 
RyanBlack said:
The essence-energies understanding of God as opposed to God as pure act isn’t in any practical way a barrier to restoration of full communion. By far the greatest barrier is the role of the Bishop of Rome. In all my years of reading and discussions concerning ecumenical dialogue (including those with one of the leading figures of the ecumenical movement), I never encountered this difference as anything other than a matter of historical curiosity.
Click to expand...
Statements about the very nature of God are most certainly a barrier to communion. If they are false, then they are blasphemy. If they are true, then their denial is blasphemy. There can be no communion between people who disagree about whether the following statements are true:

“That supremely Divine light is neither a created thing, nor the essence of God, but is rather uncreated and natural grace, illumination, and energy which everlastingly and inseparably proceeds from the very essence of God.”

“There is an unconfused union of God’s essence and energy, so is there also an undivided distinction between them, for, among other things, essence is cause while energy is effect, essence suffers no participation, while energy is communicable;.”
 
PluniaZ said:
Statements about the very nature of God are most certainly a barrier to communion. If they are false, then they are blasphemy. If they are true, then their denial is blasphemy. There can be no communion between people who disagree about whether the following statements are true:

“That supremely Divine light is neither a created thing, nor the essence of God, but is rather uncreated and natural grace, illumination, and energy which everlastingly and inseparably proceeds from the very essence of God.”

“There is an unconfused union of God’s essence and energy, so is there also an undivided distinction between them, for, among other things, essence is cause while energy is effect, essence suffers no participation, while energy is communicable;.”
Click to expand...
Yet the Church has not, to my knowledge, made an issue of this… with respect, you are not the Magisterium.
 
twf said:
Yet the Church has not, to my knowledge, made an issue of this… with respect, you are not the Magisterium.
Click to expand...
You are right. I trust that the Magisterium will handle this in accordance with God’s will.
 
Again, it’s not a barrier, at least not on the Catholic side, probably because those involved in ecumenical dialogue on both sides don’t see the two approaches as being irreconcilable.
 
RyanBlack said:
Again, it’s not a barrier, at least not on the Catholic side, probably because those involved in ecumenical dialogue on both sides don’t see the two approaches as being irreconcilable.
Click to expand...
Well, it’s a shame that these discussions always seem to focus on minimizing the importance of doctrine, rather than whether these statements are true or false:

“That supremely Divine light is neither a created thing, nor the essence of God, but is rather uncreated and natural grace, illumination, and energy which everlastingly and inseparably proceeds from the very essence of God.”

“There is an unconfused union of God’s essence and energy, so is there also an undivided distinction between them, for, among other things, essence is cause while energy is effect, essence suffers no participation, while energy is communicable;.”
 
In order for it to be an ecumenical council, people from all the churches have to be there. I know from the Latin church side, the pope sent a delegate. I don’t think any of the Oriental Orthodox were there, so that would be a deal-breaker then.
 
RCTechGeek said:
In order for it to be an ecumenical council, people from all the churches have to be there. I know from the Latin church side, the pope sent a delegate. I don’t think any of the Oriental Orthodox were there, so that would be a deal-breaker then.
Click to expand...
This is historically inaccurate. The only true and consistent necessary item for ecumenicity is the pope’s ratification of the council as universally binding.This is either done through his legates or himself once the acts are sent to him.

Either way it was just an ordinary synod like the synod on the family that the Catholic Church held in Rome. Just an assembly of bishops to discuss a few matters and was mostly advisory. The EO certainly do not consider it Ecumenical.
 
PluniaZ said:
Unity requires correct doctrine. The EO formally adopted Neoplatonism as their theology at a series of councils in Constantinople in the 14th Century that declared:

“That supremely Divine light is neither a created thing, nor the essence of God, but is rather uncreated and natural grace, illumination, and energy which everlastingly and inseparably proceeds from the very essence of God.”

“There is an unconfused union of God’s essence and energy, so is there also an undivided distinction between them, for, among other things, essence is cause while energy is effect, essence suffers no participation, while energy is communicable; to them, therefore, who profess such impieties.”

johnsanidopoulos.com/2010/02/synodicon-of-orthodoxy.html

These statements are irreconcilable with Roman Catholic dogma that God is His attributes, and that God is one absolutely simple essence.
Click to expand...
Some of the worst kind of rhetoric I’ve encountered, would be like Easterners claiming the Latins embraced ultramontanism at V1
 
SyroMalankara said:
Some of the worst kind of rhetoric I’ve encountered, would be like Easterners claiming the Latins embraced ultramontanism at V1
Click to expand...
Maybe my rhetoric is bad. But the important question is whether these statements are true or false:

“That supremely Divine light is neither a created thing, nor the essence of God, but is rather uncreated and natural grace, illumination, and energy which everlastingly and inseparably proceeds from the very essence of God.”

“There is an unconfused union of God’s essence and energy, so is there also an undivided distinction between them, for, among other things, essence is cause while energy is effect, essence suffers no participation, while energy is communicable; to them, therefore, who profess such impieties.”
 
SyroMalankara said:
Some of the worst kind of rhetoric I’ve encountered, would be like Easterners claiming the Latins embraced ultramontanism at V1
Click to expand...
Which some do. 🤷
Doesn’t excuse Catholics turning around and doing the same thing of course.
 
PluniaZ said:
Maybe my rhetoric is bad. But the important question is whether these statements are true or false:

“That supremely Divine light is neither a created thing, nor the essence of God, but is rather uncreated and natural grace, illumination, and energy which everlastingly and inseparably proceeds from the very essence of God.”

“There is an unconfused union of God’s essence and energy, so is there also an undivided distinction between them, for, among other things, essence is cause while energy is effect, essence suffers no participation, while energy is communicable; to them, therefore, who profess such impieties.”
Click to expand...
To the best of my knowledge, Eastern (Byzantine) Catholics accept Eastern theology on essence / energy, and remain in full communion with Rome. That tells me it isn’t an issue. I can’t pretend to understand why it is or isn’t a deal breaker…but I trust the bishops.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top