orthodoxjointcommission.wordpress.com/2014/12/02/joint-commission-for-the-dialogue-between-eastern-orthodox-oriental-orthodox-churches-revamped/
That would be a shame, really. Every council on each side should at least consider reunification. In my humble opinion, at least. I truly don’t see how it is God’s will that we remain divided.
Why would reunification be on the table for the “Synod on the Family” for example? The topics that are going to be discussed are already agreed upon, I don’t believe reunification will be one of them. Perhaps, they may discuss inter-church marriage, and how to universally receive Catholics (and other baptized Christians) - via baptism, chrismation or renunciation and profession. They may also refer to Catholic practices (but just to discuss it as an option, they may opt to go the other way entirely).
Just don’t let the Baptists hear you say that.
Yes. Those points come to mind when reading the link provided from the opening post.
From that link
You realize you could have said “Catholics can be polemical too” and saved yourself a lot of typing?Yes. Those points come to mind when reading the link provided from the opening post.
From that link
“For Orthodox Christians, there hasn’t been an Ecumenical Council since 787, with the Second Council of Nicaea that resolved the problem of iconoclasm, namely the debate about whether icons can or cannot be used for liturgical and devotional purposes.”
787 is the last ecumenical council for THEM because as the article states
(emphasis mine)
“the Orthodox believe that it is the whole church that must convene—East and West—in order for a council to be considered ecumenical”
However, I have to ask, was there even an “Orthodox Church” by that name, back in 787?
And as an aside, It’s actually the pope confirming a council to be ecumenical that makes a council ecumenical, (binding on the whole Church) otherwise the council is binding on only those who are represented at the council, NOT binding on the whole Church
For the list of ecumenical councils, See the link of ecumenical councils, bottom of the page.
Since all those Churches mentioned in the opening article, are autocephalous, and independent of each other, then no ONE has authority over, or oversees them all.
Therefore, If everyone is equal in authority and independent of each other, and there is no ONE with primacy of authority over all of THEM, then THAT obviously goes against what Jesus established in Peter.
After all, Primacy of authority in the Church, and in counsel & council, established by Jesus in Peter, must be important, or Jesus wouldn’t have established the position in Peter in the first place…
Here is one bit of scriptural evidence to make the point.
In scripture,
Luke 22:26 Jesus confirms one of THE apostles is the greatest μείζων ] & the leader ἡγούμενος ] over all, (thus everyone is NOT equal in authority ). In context, Jesus names only Simon to be that leader.
Original Word: ἡγούμενος ] is ἡγέομαι*/ hēgeomai [Lk 22:26] comes from *2232 , 2233
1) to lead
a) to go before
b) to be a leader
1) to rule, command
2) to have authority over
3) a prince, of regal power, governor, viceroy, chief, leading as respects influence, controlling in counsel, overseers or leaders of the churches
4) used of any kind of leader, chief, commander
5) the leader in speech, chief, spokesman
Sure looks like Jesus is establishing the papacy to me
the Greek makes the further point,
2233 /hēgéomai (“an official who leads”) carries important responsibility and hence “casts a heavy vote” (influence) – and hence deserve cooperation by those who are led (Heb 13:7; passive, “to esteem/reckon heavily” the person or influence who is leading).]
That last point almost goes without saying. Peter deserves cooperation, of and by, those he leads.
And I think THAT point addresses YOUR points about the Orthodox disposition towards the papacy.
**Ecumenical councils = 21 **
newadvent.org/library/almanac_14388a.htm
As an aside, after 787, there were 14 more ecumenical councils in the Catholic Church.
That is an accurate characterization of some, perhaps a slight majority, of Orthodox, but not accurate of all or even the vast majority. The most that can be said is that the Orthodox Church views the papacy as it has developed in the west as problematic. Whcih as least some RC theologians agree with.
:clapping:
Thank you, Expatreprocedit. Honestly I can’t see either side polemicizing against the other being a good thing. (I used to spend a lot of time on an Orthodox forum before I started spending a lot of time here, so I’m pretty familiar with both sides’ polemics.)
Only a few of us believe this.
how are you using polemical?
Let me ask you,
Here’s a brief history of the 1st 4 centuries. All the internal links in this link are operational. Be sure and open them #34
How would you like to use it?
How would you like to use it?
That is an untenable reading of the Greek. Firstly, it should be clear that μείζων here is being used in the sense of age or seniority, since it is contrasted with νεώτερος (the younger). Secondly, μείξων is not the superlative but the comparative, so it would not be the greatest but rather “the greater.” In other words, the Lord is telling the disciples that among them, the elder (“the greater”) should be as the younger, not thinking to lord over the younger on account of his seniority. It does not confirm that there is a “greatest” as you allege (though I suppose that it implies that there is an eldest). That’s just a very sloppy reading of the Greek on your part.
The passage nowhere implies that there should be one unique ἡγούμενος. The generic nature of the construction ὁ μείζων ἐν ὑμῖν γινέσθω ὡς ὁ νεώτερος implies that καὶ ὁ ἡγούμενος ὡς ὁ διακονῶν is also meant in the same generic sense.
Hardly. Rather, it looks as if the Lord is speaking to the disciples to instruct them how they are to relate to each other, not being like the gentiles who lord their seniority over the younger. Often times, your constant attempts to prove that Jesus established a papacy of power and might makes it seem as if you are trying to make the papacy look just like the gentiles whom Jesus told the disciples not to emulate.Sure looks like Jesus is establishing the papacy to me
Nowhere, however, is ἡγούμενος used solely to refer to Peter. That’s the major problem with your analysis. There are other ἡγούμενοι in the Church, as the Scriptures can attest, and the scriptures give only a vague impression of what, if any, organization existed between the ἡγούμενοι of the church in different places.
Not really. Here is the reality:
Anybody can read the definition of those words and the links I gave for convenience that explain the words being used. #45
I gave all the support for my answer with links to words being used as evidence NOT my opinion.for what I said,
Lk22
I gave links for easy access and full description of the Greek words. I don’t expect anyone to take my word for anything.
Seems to me you’re still having that same argument that Jesus settled in the upper room?
Sure looks like Jesus is establishing the papacy to me
It depends really. Some more locally oriented councils are observed or at least taken seriously by Orthodox communities that did not attend. So there is no hard rule of thumb concerning local councils, etc. At best they are treated as court cases in English common law, insofar that they are important, but not binding for those who did not attend. This is my best analogy for lack of a better one. Great or General Councils, such as the Synod of Jerusalem in 1672 are universally accepted. For most it isn’t regarded as ecumenical, insofar that it is indispensable to the faith, but still has universal ramifications.