On the Great Council of the Orthodox Church

  • Thread starter Thread starter CopyBoy
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
I’m willing to admit that wasn’t the answer I was expecting. 👍
Well, I am possibly in the minority. One, I’m a recent convert so I’m not as emotionally invested in the Catholic church being “right” and the Orthodox church being wrong. I considered becoming Orthodox, and I believe that had I done so I’d still have benefited from being a member of a church with apostolic succession, all 7 valid sacraments, and solid teachings. I do believe the Catholic Church is correct on the papacy, but I’m not so invested in that that I would ignore it if an ecumenical council declared otherwise. I think what unites us is far greater than what divides us and that unity would be beneficial to us all.
 
Well, I am possibly in the minority. One, I’m a recent convert so I’m not as emotionally invested in the Catholic church being “right” and the Orthodox church being wrong. I considered becoming Orthodox, and I believe that had I done so I’d still have benefited from being a member of a church with apostolic succession, all 7 valid sacraments, and solid teachings. I do believe the Catholic Church is correct on the papacy, but I’m not so invested in that that I would ignore it if an ecumenical council declared otherwise. I think what unites us is far greater than what divides us and that unity would be beneficial to us all.
Yes, I agree with this. I think there is much more resistance on the Orthodox side to unity; even if we ‘gave’ them the above declaration - quite unlikely, but just for the sake of argument - there would still be some Orthodox resistance. My guess is various Orthodox denominations would go with us in unity, while others did not. Many (if not all) denominations have a strong sense of their own identity as the true Church. Unity would threaten that.
 
But which one? Would you accept that the Catholic Church was wrong and accept the pope taking a diminished role as the “first among equals” along side the Eastern Orthodox Patriarchs?
I’ll give my answer to that as well: I don’t want to absolutely rule out that I could someday decide that I should become Orthodox, but it’s highly unlikely that I would.

In the absense of a strong compelling reason to change, I believe that I should remain Catholic-ICWR.
 
Absolutely, if that were God’s will. Wouldn’t not doing so be allowing my ego to be more important to me than God? Now personally I think there’s a lot of evidence that all the way to the beginning of the Church that the other Bishops recognized the primacy of the Bishop of Rome. And I think it makes a certain amount of sense that our Lord would give us a final authority to turn to when there are issues on which we cannot agree. And I think it’s telling that the Orthodox have not had an ecumenical council since the Great Schism. That said, if the two churches sat down and ultimately (through prayer and the guidance of the Holy Spirit) determined that the Pope is merely first among equals I would be okay with that. My job is to be obedient to God.
Which should be the subject of admiration. The fact that the Orthodox Churches do not need a council every few hundred years tells me they have a great fidelity to their tradition. You have to remember, when the Church has to have an ecumenical council, it’s not a good thing. It means the Church is in trouble. It would have been better if there hadn’t been a need for Trent in the first place. Similarly, Vatican I and II took place during times of great unrest. Would that we had fewer councils than more councils!
Also, it is telling that there is still unrest and anxiety within the Catholic Church. Why is that do you think?
 
Which should be the subject of admiration. The fact that the Orthodox Churches do not need a council every few hundred years tells me they have a great fidelity to their tradition. You have to remember, when the Church has to have an ecumenical council, it’s not a good thing. It means the Church is in trouble. It would have been better if there hadn’t been a need for Trent in the first place. Similarly, Vatican I and II took place during times of great unrest. Would that we had fewer councils than more councils!
Code:
Also, it is telling that there is still unrest and anxiety within the Catholic Church. Why is that do you think?
Actually, my understanding of the reason they haven’t had a full blown ecumenical council since the Great Schism - from what I’ve read on both the Orthodox and the Catholic side- is that they feel that both the Western and Eastern Church must be present to call it ecumenical. Otherwise it’s just a council, and they’ve had plenty of those.

I find myself to be unqualified to explain unrest and anxiety within the Catholic Church but my guess would be the influence of the evil one.
 
Actually, my understanding of the reason they haven’t had a full blown ecumenical council since the Great Schism - from what I’ve read on both the Orthodox and the Catholic side- is that they feel that both the Western and Eastern Church must be present to call it ecumenical. Otherwise it’s just a council, and they’ve had plenty of those.

I find myself to be unqualified to explain unrest and anxiety within the Catholic Church but my guess would be the influence of the evil one.
That’s not particularly true. There’s a very good book discussing the view of councils and larger function of the church. Jon Mallory gives a simple good summary of how Orthodox view councils, that they do not exist to affirm and articulate a teaching by itself, but to delineate the faith in response to heresy. It’s only when a local or regional synod is incapable of solving an issue that it should concern the larger church.

This is why we’ve never had another ecumenical council per say as it’s unnecessary. Furthermore, we’ve had more councils after the schism. They just haven’t be observed (currently) to have the same status as those during the first millennium.

And for those that argue Rome (or the Pope) is necessary for ecumenicity, then its worth noting to point out that several Orthodox bishops have brought a proposal for the Photian Council and Palamite Council(s) to be recognized as ecumenical (although they are considered authoritative either way).
 
In all honesty, not much new will be proposed. Just some long-trending issues will have to be resolved, mainly dealing with jurisdictional matters and relations with other Christians since now Orthodoxy is all over the world more than it ever has been.
The items officially approved for referral to and adoption by the Holy and Great Council are: The Mission of the Orthodox Church in the Contemporary World, The Orthodox Diaspora, Autonomy and its Manner of Proclamation, The Sacrament of Marriage and its Impediments, The Significance of Fasting and its Application Today, and Relations of the Orthodox Church with the Rest of the Christian World. By decision of the Primates, all approved documents will be published.
patriarchate.org/-/anakoinothen-27-01-2016-?inheritRedirect=true&redirect=%2Flatest-news
 
Which should be the subject of admiration. The fact that the Orthodox Churches do not need a council every few hundred years tells me they have a great fidelity to their tradition. You have to remember, when the Church has to have an ecumenical council, it’s not a good thing. It means the Church is in trouble. It would have been better if there hadn’t been a need for Trent in the first place. Similarly, Vatican I and II took place during times of great unrest. Would that we had fewer councils than more councils!
Code:
Also, it is telling that there is still unrest and anxiety within the Catholic Church. Why is that do you think?
There’s always been unrest in the Church. There’s always been sinful human beings among her ranks ;).

Orthodoxy has its own share of unrest. Jurisdictional disputes come to mind. The major social issues of Russia come to mind (such as astoundingly high alcohol abuse, high abortion rate, etc.). I only bring up the latter because it is often noted how far from the faith the traditional Catholic countries have fallen. This is true. But this problem is not limited to Catholicism. The vast, vast, vast, vast, vast, vast majority of Orthodox Christians in the world live in Russia.
 
Jon Mallory #25
The fact that the Orthodox Churches do not need a council every few hundred years tells me they have a great fidelity to their tradition. You have to remember, when the Church has to have an ecumenical council, it’s not a good thing. It means the Church is in trouble.
False reasoning throughout.
Councils do not mean, and have never meant, that “the Church is in trouble”. Councils mean that, errors can be exposed, and doctrine and dogma can develop as Christ mandated.
It would have been better if there hadn’t been a need for Trent in the first place. Similarly, Vatican I and II took place during times of great unrest. Would that we had fewer councils than more councils!
As Christ mandated:
All four promises to Peter alone
“You are Peter and on this rock I will build My Church.” (Mt 16:18)
“The gates of hell will not prevail against it.”(Mt 16:18)
“I will give you the keys of the Kingdom of heaven." ( Mt 16:19)
“Whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven.” (Mt 16:19) [Later to the Twelve, also].

Sole authority
“Strengthen your brethren.” (Lk 22:32)
“Feed My sheep.”(Jn 21:17).

The “need” for Ecumenical Councils is vital and arises precisely because of challenges to the faith and morals of the teaching Church.

Thus, for instance, Vatican II also developed doctrine profoundly, as the revered Fr John a Hardon, S.J., affirms. Vatican II confirmed that even non-infallible doctrine must be received with assent: “This loyal submission of the will and intellect must be given, in a special way, to the authentic teaching authority of the Roman Pontiff, even when he does not speak ex cathedra”…when doctrine is proposed or formulated. *Lumen Gentium *(Dogmatic Constitution on the Church), 25].

Similarly, “collegial infallibility…marks a turning point in doctrinal history.” [See *The Catholic Catechism, 1975, Doubleday, p 232-233]. This refers to the bishops around the world when teaching in accord with the Pope; when reflecting historical continuity of teaching; and in an Ecumenical Council when approved by a Pope.

The *Dogmatic Constitution On The Church *#8 (Vatican II) teaches that “The one mediator, Christ, established and ever sustains here on earth His holy Church…(T)his is the sole Church of Christ which in the Creed we profess to be one, holy, catholic and apostolic.” Fr John Hardon, S.J., describes as “unequivocal” (= clearly defined), “for the first time in conciliar history — the Church is not one of many branches.” [See *The Catholic Catechism, 1975, Doubleday, p 213].

In contrast, the Orthodox Churches have succumbed to the age in some respects such as, while having the priesthood and thus the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass and sacraments, they fell into error by jettisoning Christ’s Magisterium and the infallible teaching against contraception, denying the Dogma of the Immaculate Conception, and permitting divorce and remarriage.
 
Too bad. Truly a great one.
🙂 🙂 🙂

… But really, since you’re a Catholic, I imagine that you would not want an Orthodox council to be as anathema oriented (for lack of a better term) as the Council of Trent was.
 
🙂 🙂 🙂

… But really, since you’re a Catholic, I imagine that you would not want an Orthodox council to be as anathema oriented (for lack of a better term) as the Council of Trent was.
No, I wouldn’t want any Church council today to use that language. But those were different times, and the Church was dealing with much controversy and heresy, and the results were some very well developed and well presented teachings. The opposing teachings and their teachers were considered worthy of shunning, as a way to emphasize the importance of preserving the authentic ones.
 
No, I wouldn’t want any Church council today to use that language.
Not a question of language. I’m hoping that the council won’t issue new anathemas – or at least, if it does I hope they will be against e.g. Calvinism, not against Roman Catholicism.
 
Not a question of language. I’m hoping that the council won’t issue new anathemas – or at least, if it does I hope they will be against e.g. Calvinism, not against Roman Catholicism.
Calvinism was already anathematized at the synod of Jerusalem but they might repeat it again to give it more weight.
 
Not a question of language. I’m hoping that the council won’t issue new anathemas – or at least, if it does I hope they will be against e.g. Calvinism, not against Roman Catholicism.
I see. Yes, Calvinism would be an acceptable “target” IMO. 🙂 But I rather think that won’t be the focus or orientation of the council-they’ll probably be diplomatic in any case. And any nod towards reunification-even the slightest-would be refreshing and potentially very beneficial of course.
 
And any nod towards reunification-even the slightest-would be refreshing and potentially very beneficial of course.
That would fall under the category of relations with the non-Chalcedonian (Coptic, Armenian, Ethiopian etc) churches, a.k.a. “Miaphysite” churches. But with regard to other Christians, I would hope the council would lead to the Orthodox being just a bit friendlier (especially toward Catholics) – topics for the council will surely not include titles like “Reunification with [Catholics/Anglicans/Lutherans/Methodists/whomever]”.
 
Calvinism was already anathematized at the synod of Jerusalem but they might repeat it again to give it more weight.
Right.

Even more generally, the whole question of whether there will be new anathemas largely hinges on what you mean by “*new *anathemas”.
 
I doubt Catholics will even be mentioned, except maybe a complaint about the Ukrainian Greek Catholic Church from the Russian Orthodox Patriarch
 
Really? I’d be surprised if there aren’t several mentions of Catholics, and also other Christians (though perhaps without using the actual words “Anglicans”, “Lutherans”, etc.).
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top