Orthodox Church And Ecumenical Councils

[ProfBJS]

Hi All,

In my talks with an Eastern Orthodox Christian he said that the Orthodox Church has not held an Ecumenical Council sense 787 A.D. because there has not been a new heresy since then.

Catholics on the other hand from what I hear say that the Orthodox do not hold Ecumenical Councils because they do not have the authority.

What do you say? And what does the Catholic Church say about the Orthodox Church and Ecumenical Councils’?

 

[Rawb]

With all due respect, why are you going to Roman Catholics to ask why Orthodox do or do not do something?

 

[Ignatius]

Hi All,

In my talks with an Eastern Orthodox Christian he said that the Orthodox Church has not held an Ecumenical Council sense 787 A.D. because there has not been a new heresy since then.

Catholics on the other hand from what I hear say that the Orthodox do not hold Ecumenical Councils because they do not have the authority.

What do you say? And what does the Catholic Church say about the Orthodox Church and Ecumenical Councils’?

I say, if you want to know what Holy Orthodoxy teaches, you should consult the Orthodox.

 

[Nita]

Hi All,

In my talks with an Eastern Orthodox Christian he said that the Orthodox Church has not held an Ecumenical Council sense 787 A.D. because there has not been a new heresy since then.

There most certainly have been heresies since 787.
To name just a few:
denial of the real presence of Jesus in the Eucharist
denial of the real power (communication of the life of sanctifying grace) in the sacraments
denial of the sacrificial nature of the Mass
false teaching about the meaning and means of justification
etc. etc. etc.

If you look at the various doctrines and dogmas proclaimed in the councils after 787 AD, you’ll know what heresies arose that necessitated the need for an official Church definition of the true doctrines.

You know, the Catholic Church is “universal”. I don’t know if the Eastern Orthodox natioons had much of a problem in their countries with the Protestant Reformation. If not, they may have felt there was no need to address the heresies put forward by the various reformers. But the Catholic Church is universal, not national. If a heresy arises anywhere and becomes a problem, it has to be addressed.
Orthodox Churches are more national, and my guess is that they addressed only issues that arose in their particular national boundaries.

Rawb
With all due respect, why are you going to Roman Catholics to ask why Orthodox do or do not do something?

Rawb, would you please respond to the bolded statement if I am wrong. I do want to know the Orthodox thinking.

 

[Rawb]

There most certainly have been heresies since 787.
To name just a few:
denial of the real presence of Jesus in the Eucharist
denial of the real power (communication of the life of sanctifying grace) in the sacraments
denial of the sacrificial nature of the Mass
false teaching about the meaning and means of justification
etc. etc. etc.

If you look at the various doctrines and dogmas proclaimed in the councils after 787 AD, you’ll know what heresies arose that necessitated the need for an official Church definition of the true doctrines.

You know, the Catholic Church is “universal”. I don’t know if the Eastern Orthodox natioons had much of a problem in their countries with the Protestant Reformation. If not, they may have felt there was no need to address the heresies put forward by the various reformers. But the Catholic Church is universal, not national. If a heresy arises anywhere and becomes a problem, it has to be addressed.
Orthodox Churches are more national, and my guess is that they addressed only issues that arose in their particular national boundaries.

Rawb, would you please respond to the bolded statement if I am wrong. I do want to know the Orthodox thinking.

You’re correct and incorrect.

All of those things you list are Western heresies. The East doesn’t have protestants, and when yours tried to get us to agree with them, we politely told them that wasn’t possible (Martin Luther and his followers wrote several times to the Ecumenical Patriarch). Thus, those heresies were never widespread in the Orthodox Church.

But “Catholic” doesn’t mean “universal” in the sense of “geographically everywhere.” Well I mean, it can, but that’s not what The Church means when she calls herself Catholic. It is “according to the whole” and references the fact that the teachings have been fully received since the beginning and there is no new revelation coming. The Faith is “whole.” Thus The Church being Catholic, which the Orthodox Church does call herself, means not that she addresses issues globally present. There’s no requirement to call a council to deal with issues The Church isn’t facing, and from our position The Church wasn’t facing those issues. You might ask why The Roman Catholic Church hasn’t had a council addressing the heresy of Reincarnation since there are 851 Million Hindus who believe in it.

Furthermore the issue must be present in more than one Local Church (Russian, Greek, Serbian, Japanese are ‘local’ Churches) in order to warrant calling more than a Local Council. If only in Bulgaria is Iconoclasm spreading (as an example) it’s rather ridiculous to call a council of all the bishops of the world, when all the bishops of Bulgaria can easily handle it.

So you’re right in that The Church would probably be only dealing with heresies at a local, which would align with (generally) the national level. It’s wrong though to think or imply that this is because we’re only concerned with certain nationalities or are “ethnically divided.”

 

[Genesis315]

The Orthodox Churches have had various pan-Orthodox Councils (ie Councils of the whole Eastern Orthodox Church) since the schism, but they don’t consider them ecumenical because Rome wasn’t there and they later repudiated various things these Councils taught.

For example, to deal with Protesantism, they had such a Council in Jerusalem in 1672 which teaches things like the Catholic understanding of original sin, the damnation of infants who die without having said sin cleansed, punishment for sin after death for the saved (ie Purgatory, without using the word), the need for satisfaction for sin, transubstantiation (using the word), etc. This Council isn’t brought up any more because in the 19th and early 20th centuries there was a wave of anti-Latinism in Eastern Orthodoxy where these doctrines were repudiated. You can find other examples of similarly ignored pan-Orthodox Councils, such as the Council of Constantinople in 1727 which affirmed the Church’s ability to grant indulgences (their use for enrichment was condemned in the Council of Constantinople in 1838, but not their use in general, which even continued into the 20th century in some places).

Then of course there is the reunion Councils which did have Rome participating which found all the disputed issues in the Catholic Church’s favor–these of course have also been repudiated.

So it’s not much that they stopped having Church-wide Councils, they just have decided to ignore them.

 

[Rawb]

The Orthodox Churches have had various pan-Orthodox Councils (ie Councils of the whole Eastern Orthodox Church) since the schism, but they don’t consider them ecumenical because Rome wasn’t there and they later repudiated various things these Councils taught.

The presence or absence of Rome has nothing to do with anything in Orthodoxy, since the Schism.

As to the rest of your statement, just because everyone gets together and has a council, even where canons are issued, doesn’t make it an Ecumenical council. That’s why we have the term “robber council.” There have been councils of all the bishops who promulgated some teaching, before the Schism, and both Orthodoxy and Roman Catholicism reject them as Ecumenical though at the time they were considered so.

The only thing that can tell whether a council will be marked as Ecumenical is time.

 

[Catholic_Dude]

Hi All,

In my talks with an Eastern Orthodox Christian he said that the Orthodox Church has not held an Ecumenical Council sense 787 A.D. because there has not been a new heresy since then.

Catholics on the other hand from what I hear say that the Orthodox do not hold Ecumenical Councils because they do not have the authority.

What do you say? And what does the Catholic Church say about the Orthodox Church and Ecumenical Councils’?

First of all, there have been lots of heresies since 787, and the EO would at least say the Filioque and Papacy are two big ones. That’s why there was the Ecumenical Councils of Lyons in the 1200s and Florence in the 1400s.

The EO simply have no way to define or call an Ecumenical Council. That’s why they haven’t, and that’s why there have been major nearly-ecumenical councils in Eastern Orthodoxy that none of them have been able to agree upon just how authoritative they are.

To this day there are major doctrines in Orthodoxy that have not and can never be officially settled, such as the Canon of Scripture, the ‘correct’ view of the Pope, the status of Rome, whether Moscow is Third Rome, certain applications of the sacraments (e.g. rebaptism for Protestants/Catholics), no official stance on certain major moral issues (e.g. divorce, contraception, abortion), etc.

If you want to read a SUPERB critique of these problems, look at this essay posted by an Eastern Orthodox blogger.

 

[Catholic_Dude]

The presence or absence of Rome has nothing to do with anything in Orthodoxy, since the Schism.

That’s a problematic statement for a few reasons. First, there isn’t really an official date for the Schism, nor is there any official stance on how things changed since then. Also, if one defines an Ecumenical Council as dependent on being signed by all 5 Patriarchs (Rome, Constantinople, Alexandria, Antioch, Jerusalem), and Rome is missing, then an ECouncil is thus impossible. The fact that Eastern Orthodoxy cannot even agree on the status of Rome (e.g. does Rome even have valid holy orders so as there to even be a Rome? how authoritative is the Pope?) further brings this out.

As to the rest of your statement, just because everyone gets together and has a council, even where canons are issued, doesn’t make it an Ecumenical council.

Correct, but the EO cannot explain why. That’s the problem.

That’s why we have the term “robber council.” There have been councils of all the bishops who promulgated some teaching, before the Schism, and both Orthodoxy and Roman Catholicism reject them as Ecumenical though at the time they were considered so.

They were considered “robber” precisely because Rome called them “robber”. Not because Constantinople or EO as a whole did.

The only thing that can tell whether a council will be marked as Ecumenical is time.

Which is a dangerous and subjective and thus ridiculous criteria if you think about it. Since when did anyone at the Early Ecumenical Councils say we have to wait some unspecified time before we can call these canons and decrees ecumenical and infallible? The passage of time cannot tell anything other than who chose to follow the council or not, but nothing about it’s validity or orthodoxy.
It’s answers like these, and unofficial ones at that, that the EO are stuck using to define “Ecumenical” precisely because they lack Rome.

 

[Rawb]

That’s a problematic statement for a few reasons. First, there isn’t really an official date for the Schism, nor is there any official stance on how things changed since then.

My aunt and uncle got a divorce, but she kept his last name (he’s related by blood, thus so is his last name). My family didn’t have to have a meeting to discuss how things had changed, how we should act towards her, whether she was a member of the family anymore even though she had the last name, and it didn’t matter when our individual relationships with her ended, we all just knew, after time had passed, that this was the way things were now. Indeed, all of that happened before the ‘official’ divorce date set by the court, because the reality of relationships aren’t based upon the constructs of legalities.

The Church isn’t a corporation where things must be properly overseen by HR and then filed in triplicate with the official stamp of the CEO on each form. Talks with Roman Catholics and Orthodox aren’t going to get anywhere until Romans accept that things happen more fluidly and organically in Orthodoxy, and that this doesn’t concern us because we believe God is in charge of it all. You’d have to truly come to accept, not just tolerate, that we believe this, and accept that it is just as valid as your way of doing it (unfortunately the reality of the situation may compel me to mention that we don’t necessarily, in general, believe your way is ‘valid’, nor are willing to accept it as such, but as y’all are the ones more concerned with re-union and claiming we’re “two lungs” that’s really more your concern than ours. I’m sorry if that sound harsh or blunt, but things are easier when everyone’s honest about the situation).

Also, if one defines an Ecumenical Council as dependent on being signed by all 5 Patriarchs (Rome, Constantinople, Alexandria, Antioch, Jerusalem),

As far as I know nobody does, so the point is moo.

The fact that Eastern Orthodoxy cannot even agree on the status of Rome (e.g. does Rome even have valid holy orders so as there to even be a Rome? how authoritative is the Pope?) further brings this out.

The status of Rome has very little to do with the internal workings of The Holy Orthodox Church. Does Rome have valid orders? With all due respect, who cares? What difference does it make? It wouldn’t change anything about how we operate. We do have an official position though, and it is “we can’t know.” Not just that we don’t know, but we can’t. We don’t know how or when or why God operates outside His church. It may be possible all your priests are truly priests of God, or it may be only some of them, or none, but in the end it doesn’t matter. I don’t know what you mean by “even be a Rome.” Of course there’s a Rome? It’s in Italy. The pope has no authority right now because he’s not Orthodox.

As to your other “doctrines” listed up in another post, The Orthodox do all agree on a Canon of Scripture (the EO anyway) but even if we didn’t it wouldn’t concern us much. Wouldn’t that be a slight against your claims though, since the Canon was supposed to have been set far earlier than the Schism; wouldn’t this imply that we in the East didn’t accept something set by the pope?

We all agree - Rome is heterodox and therefor not Orthodox. I don’t know what you want more than that.

Whether one is “Third Rome” or not would be a title of honor, with no authority or weight behind it so who cares if Moscow is it or not.

We receive heterodox Christians by various rites, but that’s because we believe the Grace of God satisfies anything lacking on our end - you’ll notice nobody disputes whether those who’ve converted are ‘actually’ Orthodox Christians?

Finally we have very clear positions on divorce, contraception, and abortion, so your last statement is ridiculous.

Correct, but the EO cannot explain why. That’s the problem.

Why do we need to explain why? The Ecumenical Councils are the Ecumenical Councils because The Church says so. Because God says so.

They were considered “robber” precisely because Rome called them “robber”. Not because Constantinople or EO as a whole did.

Maybe according to Romans. Orthodox don’t do things unilaterally, and the people are just as much protectors of The Faith as the heirarchs (indeed, sometimes protecting The Faith from the heirarchs). I’ll be honest - I didn’t read the link, I haven’t the time.

Which is a dangerous and subjective and thus ridiculous criteria if you think about it

To you, maybe. I’m sorry you feel the reality of the situation is ‘ridiculous.’

Since when did anyone at the Early Ecumenical Councils say we have to wait some unspecified time before we can call these canons and decrees ecumenical and infallible?

Never, but who said anything about infallible? Orthodox don’t regard the councils as infallible.

The passage of time cannot tell anything other than who chose to follow the council or not, but nothing about it’s validity or orthodoxy.

Yes, but whether the entire Church follows the council is the definition of Ecumenical. If a council anathematizes a heirarch and his people follow they’ve left The Church and aren’t counted, but how can “ecumenical” mean other than “representing everybody?” If everyone but Russia follows a council, how can it be Ecumenical? It must be everyone in The Church, comprised of all the churches, which only time will reveal. As I said, some councils were thought to be Ecumenical when they were being held, but were later overturned because not everyone believed they upheld Orthodoxy. It’s the way it is done.

 

[Cavaradossi]

The Orthodox Churches have had various pan-Orthodox Councils (ie Councils of the whole Eastern Orthodox Church) since the schism, but they don’t consider them ecumenical because Rome wasn’t there and they later repudiated various things these Councils taught.

For example, to deal with Protesantism, they had such a Council in Jerusalem in 1672 which teaches things like the Catholic understanding of original sin, the damnation of infants who die without having said sin cleansed, punishment for sin after death for the saved (ie Purgatory, without using the word), the need for satisfaction for sin, transubstantiation (using the word), etc. This Council isn’t brought up any more because in the 19th and early 20th centuries there was a wave of anti-Latinism in Eastern Orthodoxy where these doctrines were repudiated. You can find other examples of similarly ignored pan-Orthodox Councils, such as the Council of Constantinople in 1727 which affirmed the Church’s ability to grant indulgences (their use for enrichment was condemned in the Council of Constantinople in 1838, but not their use in general, which even continued into the 20th century in some places).

Then of course there is the reunion Councils which did have Rome participating which found all the disputed issues in the Catholic Church’s favor–these of course have also been repudiated.

So it’s not much that they stopped having Church-wide Councils, they just have decided to ignore them.

There are several errors in your understanding of these councils and teachings:

Absolution certificates were provided for the remission of sins (not the temporal punishment due, but the actual sins), a function which indulgences do not have. The two are not the same.

The Latin doctrine that the fiery punishment experienced by the dead in purgatory is the cause of their cleansing is nowhere found in the confession of Dositheus, and his confession must be understood as being in agreement with the Synodikon of Orthodoxy (with which he would have been well acquainted as patriarch), which was amended in 1583 by a synod in Constantinople (including the bishops of Alexandria, Constantinople and Jerusalem) to include a condemnation of all those who teach that, “the souls of Christians who repented while in the world but failed to perform their penance go to a purgatory of fire when they die.” As I wrote to you in another thread on the very same subject of purgatory, you as a non-Orthodox Christian are simply not in any position to interpret the words of our councils and fathers, as you are not familiar with the many sources of Orthodox dogmatic teaching, like the aforementioned amendments to the Synodikon of Orthodoxy made by the council of 1583.

On the closely related subject of satisfaction, you misunderstand the Orthodox rejection of the concept. For the Orthodox a forgiven sin does not require punishment or satisfaction, as the cause of punishment has been dissolved. That does not mean, however, that God cannot demand satisfaction at all. We disagree with how satisfaction and forgiveness are linked in Latin theology, not with the concept of penitential practices as satisfaction.

On original sin, you again are mistaken. The Orthodox do not reject Original Sin, per se, but only certain Augustinian theories of shared culpability and a sin of nature. Nowhere does Dositheus in his confession, for example, teach of a sin of nature, or shared personal guilt, and his understanding of Original Sin is perfectly Orthodox. For example, in decree 6, he distinguishes between the effects of the original transgression (the effects of which are known as original or ancestral sin), and actual sins, holding that all men bear the former, the “fruits” of the original transgression, without simultaneously having to bear the latter, having to bear sins (as he says of some of the prophets and the Virgin).

On the matter of infant baptism, it would do some good to study some Orthodox theology before pontificating on this matter. He simply affirms a corollary to the belief that baptism is necessary for salvation, something which the Fathers almost unanimously agreed to. Even those who are of the opinion that those not baptized by water can still be saved caution that this is only a hope, not a guarantee, and base their position on certain strands of thought that can be found amongst some like Maximus the Confessor (who at points out that those not baptized by water still may receive baptism of the spirit in extraordinary circumstances), and the Cappadocians (especially Gregory of Nyssa who had universalist tendencies). Just as Feeney’s reading of Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus was incorrect, so too, your reading of the sixteenth decree of Dositheus’ confession is incorrect, insofar as both discount that there is an implicit understanding of the power of God to circumvent the normative means for a baptism and baptize those who could not receive baptism by water.

On transubstantiation, it should be clear enough that the way Dositheus uses the term metousiosis is in line with the Orthodox faith, namely, he denies that the term in any way teaches by what mechanism the transformation takes place, only remarking that it is a true change of being.

 

[Nita]

Thank you very much for the information Rawb.

There are a couple points I would take exception to.

…
But “Catholic” doesn’t mean “universal” in the sense of “geographically everywhere.” Well I mean, it can, but that’s not what The Church means when she calls herself Catholic…

I realize that; the Church was called “Catholic” before the gospel had been preached in every geographic nation. But, she is called “Catholic” because Christ wanted His gospel preached “geographically everywhere” – to all nations. (See CCC #831 in Catechism quote below.)

It is “according to the whole” and references the fact that the teachings have been fully received since the beginning and there is no new revelation coming. The Faith is “whole.”

Our understanding of those words is a little different. More comprehensive.
830 The word “catholic” means “universal,” in the sense of “according to the totality” or “in keeping with the whole.” the Church is catholic in a double sense:

First, the Church is catholic because Christ is present in her. “Where there is Christ Jesus, there is the Catholic Church.” In her subsists the fullness of Christ’s body ]united with its head; this implies that she receives from him “the fullness of the means of salvation” which he has willed:** correct and complete confession of faith, full sacramental life**, and** ordained ministry in apostolic succession**. the Church was, in this fundamental sense, catholic on the day of Pentecost and will always be so until the day of the Parousia.

831 Secondly, the Church is catholic because she has been sent out by Christ on a mission to the whole of the human race:

All men are called to belong to the new People of God. This People, therefore, while remaining one and only one, is to be spread throughout the whole world and to all ages in order that the design of God’s will may be fulfilled: he made human nature one in the beginning and has decreed that all his children who were scattered should be finally gathered together as one… the character of universality which adorns the People of God is a gift from the Lord himself whereby the Catholic Church ceaselessly and efficaciously seeks for the return of all humanity and all its goods, under Christ the Head in the unity of his Spirit.

vatican.va/archive/ENG0015/__P29.HTM

You might ask why The Roman Catholic Church hasn’t had a council addressing the heresy of Reincarnation since there are 851 Million Hindus who believe in it.

Councils that are called to deal with heresies are concerned about heresies being preached within Christianity and especially within the Roman Catholic Church. They are not held to examine the beliefs of the many non-Christian religions.

 

[Rawb]

Well Nita, obviously you’re going to know that what the Catechism of your Church says isn’t going to have an authority in the Orthodox understanding of a term.

But even if you want to use that meaning of the term it still doesn’t mandate that we address every issue in all of Christendom. The “Catholic” title then just refers to a missionary role The Church must play, not an “overseeing everyone who calls themself Christian” role.

But I have to point out (in fun, really) that if we’re going by geographic location, the only Church truly Catholic with a temple on every continent is the Orthodox

But maybe Roman Catholics call councils to deal with heresies in other bodies. We are only focused on (indeed feel we only have the right to have any authority within) The Orthodox Church.

 

[Cavaradossi]

Another note on the Pan-Orthodox Councils of the last several centuries. All of the theologians (mostly neo-patristic) I have read who have criticized the Council of 1672 and similar councils did not criticize the faith expressed by the councils, but only the way it is expressed. Florovsky, for example, criticizes what he sees as the subtle “Latinization of the mind” displayed by figures like Dositheus and Peter Mogila, but also affirms that their faith was genuinely Orthodox, and that they did not teach error. For example—of Dositheus’ use of the term Transubstantiation—we do not foolishly dare to believe that Dositheus somehow taught error, but we only criticize that the use of the term transubstantiation loses sight of the patristic understanding of the Eucharistic sacrifice, perhaps best expressed by this anathematism from the Synodikon of Orthodoxy: To those who hear the Saviour saying concerning the priestly service of the Divine Mysteries delivered by Him: “Do this in remembrance of Me,” but they do not understand “remembrance” correctly, but dare to say that the daily sacrifice offered by those who perform the sacred service of the Divine Mysteries, just as our Saviour, the Master of all, delivered to us, reenacts only symbolically and figuratively the Sacrifice of His own Body and Blood which our Saviour had offered on the Cross as a ransom and redemption of our common human nature; and for this reason, since they introduce the doctrine that this is a different sacrifice from the one originally consummated by the Saviour and refers to it merely symbolically and figuratively, they bring to naught the Mystery of the awesome and divine priestly service whereby we receive the earnest of the future life; therefore, to those who deny what is staunchly proclaimed by our divine Father John Chrysostom who says in many commentaries on the sayings of the Great Paul that the sacrifice is identical, that both are one and the same,

In the great zeal to define what the gifts offered up on the altar are substantially, the truth of the correspondence between the sacrifice on the altar and the Sacrifice of the Cross (this too is yet another Protestant error, the decoupling of these things), is pushed to the wayside, even though it is from the truth of the latter—that the sacrifice on the altar performed by the priest is truly the same sacrifice as the Son’s Sacrifice on the Cross—that we can know with certainty that the former must be true. Simply put, the question transubstantiation is designed to answer, namely, ‘what is it,’ is incomplete. The question should be, ‘what must it be, if we are to be saved,’ which was the primary question throughout all of the patristic era. Thus for the Orthodox, it is not that we think Dositheus was in error, but that his mindset had been shifted away from the soteriologically-grounded patristic mindset into a mindset more concerned with treating doctrinal disputes as if they were academic and not soteriological in nature.

 

[Catholic_Dude]

My aunt and uncle got a divorce…

Your analogy of divorce does not carry over into the realm of Ecclesial Schism, at least not in any technical and official manner.

Talks with Roman Catholics and Orthodox aren’t going to get anywhere until Romans accept that things happen more fluidly and organically in Orthodoxy, and that this doesn’t concern us because we believe God is in charge of it all.

The problem is this response doesn’t answer anything. It’s purely subjective and no basis for even official talks. How can Rome come to the table to talk if the EO cannot agree what is official doctrine or who’s officially the EO leader? This is why any talks with Rome can only come by talking to individual Bishops/Patriarchs of EO, since nobody speaks for all of Eastern Orthodoxy. This is especially significant with Constantinople fading away and Moscow seeing itself as the Third Rome.

Also, if one defines an Ecumenical Council as dependent on being signed by all 5 Patriarchs (Rome, Constantinople, Alexandria, Antioch, Jerusalem)

As far as I know nobody does, so the point is moot.

I know of EO apologists who believe this. I can see why many EO don’t. The problem is as soon as they start out trying to tell us what makes an Ecumenical Council the EO will suddenly realize (1) there is no official EO position, and (2) there isn’t even a good/plausible explanation offered.

The status of Rome has very little to do with the internal workings of The Holy Orthodox Church. Does Rome have valid orders? With all due respect, who cares?

This response is very telling and basically concedes the Catholic case. Eastern Orthodoxy is not so much concerned about the Church universal, but rather it’s own individual national territories that have been further and further taken the nature of ‘denominations’ as autonomous national Patriarchates are created.
To say “who cares” about the status of Rome is equivalent to saying the Schism is no big deal.

We do have an official position though, and it is “we can’t know.” Not just that we don’t know, but we can’t. … It may be possible all your priests are truly priests of God, or it may be only some of them, or none, but in the end it doesn’t matter.

Again, this basically concedes the Catholic point that Eastern Orthodoxy cannot be the True Church but instead is a series of schimatic churches.

As to your other “doctrines” listed up in another post, The Orthodox do all agree on a Canon of Scripture (the EO anyway) but even if we didn’t it wouldn’t concern us much.

It wouldn’t matter if some EO were officially teaching one set of inspired books and other EO were officially teaching another set of inspired books? To say “who cares” about the Canon of Scripture is quite astonishing. Moscow goes with the shorter (Protestant) canon, Dositheos goes with the Catholic canon, the Greeks go with the largest Canon.

We all agree - Rome is heterodox and therefor not Orthodox. I don’t know what you want more than that.

The problem is they cannot explain how Rome is heterodox, and that goes right back to the main problem. If the heterodoxy stems from Papal Primacy, then someone forgot to tell the Early Ecumenical Councils that, because there are Popes who are Canonized on EO Calendar who none the less espoused Papal Primacy (e.g. Leo the Great, Agatho).

Whether one is “Third Rome” or not would be a title of honor, with no authority or weight behind it so who cares if Moscow is it or not.

I’m sorry but this is just naive. There is a lot of weight - both ecclesiastically and politically - behind it, and with Moscow carrying 2/3 of all EO Christians means they have a huge say in matters. Constantinople in it’s hay-day carried a lot of clout and was never a mere title of honor (e.g. Constantionple early on had final say on Patriarchal appointments to Antioch and Alexandria).

We receive heterodox Christians by various rites, but that’s because we believe the Grace of God satisfies anything lacking on our end - you’ll notice nobody disputes whether those who’ve converted are ‘actually’ Orthodox Christians?

All this shows is that as long as you’re EO then everything’s good and rules and theology doesn’t really matter. This neither shows nor proves anything about coherency of the system.

Finally we have very clear positions on divorce, contraception, and abortion, so your last statement is ridiculous.

These sins are allowed to varying degrees in Eastern Orthodoxy, but no agreement.
(Part 1 of 2)

 

[Catholic_Dude]

Part 2 of 2

Why do we need to explain why? The Ecumenical Councils are the Ecumenical Councils because The Church says so. Because God says so.

This isn’t an answer. It’s not even fideism. For example, where does “God say so”? Where does “The Church” say so? As soon as you start to answer these questions in your own mind, you’ll see that there’s no official or even coherent system as to how the EO came to know this. They “know” the same way Protestants know the canon of Scripture, they got this information from Catholicism and after the schisms settled they forgot that’s where the information came from.

Maybe according to Romans. Orthodox don’t do things unilaterally, and the people are just as much protectors of The Faith as the heirarchs (indeed, sometimes protecting The Faith from the heirarchs). I’ll be honest - I didn’t read the link, I haven’t the time.

Read the link and you’ll see. The Robber Council looked like a regular Ecumenical Council. To speak of the EO not doing things “unilaterally” is incorrect and an oversimplification, particularly since Antioch and Alexandria did not accept Chalcedon and yet the EO consider it Ecumenical.

To you, maybe. I’m sorry you feel the reality of the situation is ‘ridiculous.’

To say “The only thing that can tell whether a council will be marked as Ecumenical is time” is a problematic answer because (1) it’s not official EO teaching and (2) there is no set time-limit that tells us how long we must wait before we can trust the Council. The variable of “time” alone cannot tell you if something is heterodox or orthodox, and the fact specific schisms and specific heresies have lasted for a long time also refute that.

Since when did anyone at the Early Ecumenical Councils say we have to wait some unspecified time before we can call these canons and decrees ecumenical and infallible?

Never, but who said anything about infallible? Orthodox don’t regard the councils as infallible.

So why are you saying “time” if this criteria was never stated in an official manner?
And the EO certainly do regard the Ecumenical Councils as infallible, so much so that they got in trouble when they at times said the disciplinary canons were infallible and those disciplines changed over time.

Yes, but whether the entire Church follows the council is the definition of Ecumenical.

Then how do you explain Chalcedon, when Rome and Constantinople accepted it but Antioch and Alexandria did not? It’s these kind of examples that show the bind the EO are in being unable to give a non-circular answer.

If a council anathematizes a heirarch and his people follow they’ve left The Church and aren’t counted, but how can “ecumenical” mean other than “representing everybody?”

So what about when a Patriarch is on trial and condemned by an Ecumenical Council, such as Ephesus with Nestorius of Constantinople? If a Patriarch is the heretic, then by plain logic the whole church has not accepted the council.

If everyone but Russia follows a council, how can it be Ecumenical?

That’s what you have to answer. Chalcedon was not accepted by two Patriarchs. Plus, speaking of Russia, it wasn’t Christian until the 700s or so, meaning it couldn’t have a say on whether a Council was Ecumenical. After Russia grew to power, it certainly did have a say on how councils and doctrinal matters were addressed.

It must be everyone in The Church, comprised of all the churches, which only time will reveal.

A good while after the Council of Nicaea, a larger percentage of Bishops in Christendom were Arian. By your logic, the Council of Nicaea wasn’t a Council and didn’t teach authoritatively until centuries later.

As I said, some councils were thought to be Ecumenical when they were being held, but were later overturned because not everyone believed they upheld Orthodoxy. It’s the way it is done.

If you look at the history behind various councils, you’ll see (a) that never was a Council accepted by 100% of the people, and (b) their reception depended heavily on the clout of important Church figures and even the Emperor.

 

[Rawb]

Catholic Dude, we’re going to have to just disagree. I don’t care enough about this disagreement to pursue it, and I don’t think you understand enough about Orthodoxy to make it fruitful.

By the way, I said the point was “moo,” not “moot.”

youtu.be/LiCa8hS7TLc

Cavaradossi has more interest in technical and historical matters though, he may happily engage you.

 

[Cavaradossi]

The problem is this response doesn’t answer anything. It’s purely subjective and no basis for even official talks. How can Rome come to the table to talk if the EO cannot agree what is official doctrine or who’s officially the EO leader? This is why any talks with Rome can only come by talking to individual Bishops/Patriarchs of EO, since nobody speaks for all of Eastern Orthodoxy. This is especially significant with Constantinople fading away and Moscow seeing itself as the Third Rome.

This is, at best, an overplayed angle by Catholic apologists.

I know of EO apologists who believe this.

I know of Catholic Apologists who believe in all sorts of crazy things, so what?

I can see why many EO don’t. The problem is as soon as they start out trying to tell us what makes an Ecumenical Council the EO will suddenly realize (1) there is no official EO position, and (2) there isn’t even a good/plausible explanation offered.

This response is very telling and basically concedes the Catholic case.

Perhaps you ought to study your history a bit better. We have extant documents from fifteenth and sixteenth century Western canonists who refer to Florence as the ninth or sometimes tenth ecumenical council, meaning that not on the list would have been several Lateran Councils, the two councils of Lyons, etc. The confusion over what exactly constitutes an ecumenical council is a question which only received an answer in your Church perhaps five hundred years ago, when it was decided that any council presided over or approved of by a pope would be ecumenical. But this too has its own problems. What are we to make of Pope Martin’s dyothelite Synod in the Lateran? Even St. Maximus the Confessor considered this synod to be an Ecumenical Council (which means that even the great Confessor of the true Catholic faith was unable to discern correctly whether a council would be ecumenical or not). Why is this council not ecumenical? After all, it taught the true dyothelite faith, it was presided over by a pope, and it had many bishops from the Western half of the empire in attendance, numbering some 100 or so bishops. This meaningless polemic is frankly one without any teeth, as your Church, even with its system of looking at papal ratification, cannot account for why some councils, like Pope Martin’s Council in the Lateran in 649 failed to be recognized as ecumenical councils, while others, like First Constantinople began as regional synods and then later received ecumenical status.

Eastern Orthodoxy is not so much concerned about the Church universal, but rather it’s own individual national territories that have been further and further taken the nature of ‘denominations’ as autonomous national Patriarchates are created.

Your saying it does not make it so.

To say “who cares” about the status of Rome is equivalent to saying the Schism is no big deal.

It really isn’t, as we have no pressing need for reunion. The schism, while tragic, does not diminish the Church of Christ in any way, hence the need for healing it is only for the sake of the salvation of those who are on the other side of the schism.

Again, this basically concedes the Catholic point that Eastern Orthodoxy cannot be the True Church but instead is a series of schimatic churches.

Nonsensical. The Church has been inconsistent historically in how it has received those who were baptized or ordained by heretics/schismatics. St. Basil’s first canonical epistle is a good example of this. Similarly, your Church was unsure for many years of what to do with Mormon baptisms, until a decision was finally made that they should be rejected, and Mormons should be rebaptized. We do not think that the One Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church does not have the authority to revoke and declare invalid the baptisms of heretics (as it did with the baptisms of the Eunomians, and the Sabellians), but rather that until this power is used, we cannot be sure, and must rely on our bishops’ application of the canons, just as St. Basil taught in his first canonical epistle.

It wouldn’t matter if some EO were officially teaching one set of inspired books and other EO were officially teaching another set of inspired books? To say “who cares” about the Canon of Scripture is quite astonishing. Moscow goes with the shorter (Protestant) canon, Dositheos goes with the Catholic canon, the Greeks go with the largest Canon.

This is risible for several reasons. Firstly, the Russian Orthodox follow, to my knowledge, not the Protestant canon (I have no idea where you got that idea) but the canon passed down in the Slavic traditions, which doesn’t differ at all from the Greek canon, except for maybe two books, both of which are in the appendix, and not in the main body of the Old Testament. If you wish to dispute that, then show me a source. Now, even if you are willing to try to polemically attack Orthodoxy over the placement of two books in the appendix (a truly unimportant detail), then you must answer for what are we to do with the fact that in the patristic era, the Syriacs, Greeks, Armenians, Georgians, Latins, Ethiopians, and Copts all had different scriptural canons. In fact, you must also answer for what we are to do with St. Athanasius’ affirmation that the so-called deuterocanonical books are not part of the Canon, but ought to be read by those preparing for reception into the Church. See how in your very indictments against Orthodoxy (on the canon, the reception of converts, and determining whether a council is ecumenical), you manage also ridiculously to indict the Fathers and the One Church of Christ during the patristic era as well!

 

[Cavaradossi]

The problem is they cannot explain how Rome is heterodox, and that goes right back to the main problem. If the heterodoxy stems from Papal Primacy, then someone forgot to tell the Early Ecumenical Councils that, because there are Popes who are Canonized on EO Calendar who none the less espoused Papal Primacy (e.g. Leo the Great, Agatho).

No, heterodoxy does not stem from the idea that the pope was first in the context that the East understood and continues to understand primacy. It stems from later ideas which only sprang forth from the Gregorian Reforms, ideas which were never approved by the Ecumenical Councils, nor taught as part of the Catholic faith by the fathers.

I’m sorry but this is just naive. There is a lot of weight - both ecclesiastically and politically - behind it, and with Moscow carrying 2/3 of all EO Christians means they have a huge say in matters. Constantinople in it’s hay-day carried a lot of clout and was never a mere title of honor (e.g. Constantionple early on had final say on Patriarchal appointments to Antioch and Alexandria).

Why stop with Antioch and Alexandria? Perhaps we should also mention the Byzantine Papacy, during which either the Emperor or his representative had the final say in confirming who would become the bishop of Rome. Such arrangements, however, we understand as being rooted in the basic functionality of the Church (that is, the Church makes for such arrangements, and can change them), something which the Papal dogmas do not base themselves on.

All this shows is that as long as you’re EO then everything’s good and rules and theology doesn’t really matter. This neither shows nor proves anything about coherency of the system.

I would suggest you seek the beam in your eye before seeking out the spec in ours. Your system too is not exactly coherent.

These sins are allowed to varying degrees in Eastern Orthodoxy, but no agreement.

There is actually rather strong agreement between the Orthodox as to how such issues ought to be approached, which is to say that they should be approached pastorally.

 

[Cavaradossi]

This isn’t an answer. It’s not even fideism.saying that one arrives at the truth through the use of faith For example, where does “God say so”? Where does “The Church” say so? As soon as you start to answer these questions in your own mind, you’ll see that there’s no official or even coherent system as to how the EO came to know this. They “know” the same way Protestants know the canon of Scripture, they got this information from Catholicism and after the schisms settled they forgot that’s where the information came from. Read the link and you’ll see. The Robber Council looked like a regular Ecumenical Council.

As soon as you can explain to me why the Council of the Lateran of 649 is not ecumenical, perhaps then I will give stock to your criticisms. As it stands, that criticism would apply to the Church for its first 1500 years.

To speak of the EO not doing things “unilaterally” is incorrect and an oversimplification, particularly since Antioch and Alexandria did not accept Chalcedon and yet the EO consider it Ecumenical.

Interesting, because I distinctly remember that Antioch did accept Chalcedon as Ecumenical, considering that Maximus II of Antioch was a signatory of almost all (if not all) of the sessions of Chalcedon. The Egyptians, on the other hand, could not sign, as their patriarch had been deposed (and ancient custom dictated that bishops in Egypt were not supposed to act without the consent of their Patriarch), and so they asked the Council for permission to return to Egypt to select a a new patriarch. Eventually Proterius was appointed as patriarch of Alexandria, and he approved of the Council of Chalcedon. It is true that a large amount of Syriac Christians and Coptic Christians would reject what they saw as “Imperial Christianity” (hence the term “Melkite”), but then it is not true to say that Antioch and Alexandria rejected Chalcedon, when the bishops of those two cities at the time approved of the council.

So what about when a Patriarch is on trial and condemned by an Ecumenical Council, such as Ephesus with Nestorius of Constantinople? If a Patriarch is the heretic, then by plain logic the whole church has not accepted the council.

A new patriarch is elected who accepts the council, like what happened with Chalcedon.

Plus, speaking of Russia, it wasn’t Christian until the 700s or so, meaning it couldn’t have a say on whether a Council was Ecumenical. After Russia grew to power, it certainly did have a say on how councils and doctrinal matters were addressed.

But that misunderstands the claim behind the doctrinal truth of an ecumenical council. That the Slavs were not yet Christian at the time of Chalcedon is irrelevant, because the idea that ecumenical councils are doctrinally pure is derived from the fact that the Church cannot fall into error. This is actually (if one reads the Relatio of Vatican I), then same logic used to justify Papal Infallibility. Neither is capable, however, of giving one certainty that he is in the correct Church, because both arguments in the end are founded upon a tautology: The Church will not fall into error, and only those who have not fallen into error are in the Church.

If you look at the history behind various councils, you’ll see (a) that never was a Council accepted by 100% of the people, and (b) their reception depended heavily on the clout of important Church figures and even the Emperor.

That is actually a rather fair historical assessment. The faithless Atheist looks at it and perhaps thinks to himself, “look at those Christians, believing in things which were determined by accidents of history as if they were the truth.” The Christian who believes, on the other hand beholds history and finds himself marveling at the great work of the Holy Spirit.