That is simply not true. The Orthodox do not have a “supreme bishop,” yet the bishops in council do have authority over individual bishops. Just because it doesn’t fit your ecclesiology doesn’t equate with there is “no logical way” for it to be the case.
Sure there is, there is a common understanding, unity in faith and conviction. The Eastern Catholic Churches have self-governing Synods; there need not necessarily be a super-bishop just a Primacy or Episcopal Chairman to regulate the procedures. Although, there are instances of Supreme Synodal authority, as well as Patriarchal/Catholical authority.
.I know that’s how their Church runs, but I don’t see the logical way it could have authority over the individual Bishops if they have no Supreme Bishop.
If Bishop X has authority from God by Divine Right, Bishops ABC and Z can not come together and outpower Bishop X, unless there is a Bishop above X by Divine Right that gives Bishops ABC and Z the authority to.
Then what’s the point of having councils? Why not just have the “Supreme Bishop” do it all?
It’s a lot of work you could say
the Roman Pontiff is free to have Councils and acknowledge Councils.The Orthodox believe that the bishops in council have authority from God. Otherwise, they would not hold that an individual bishop is bound by the decisions of a council of bishops.
That’s obvious
What new heresies did you have in mind?
Well yes, we can, because the heresies which appeared since iconoclasm have all been local problems which were solved by local synods, instead of problems threatening the peace of the entire oecumene. We have since Second Nicaea condemned many heresies but have had no need to convene an ecumenical council to do so, as the issues were all sufficiently resolved in local synods.
Is the Synod that is to be held beginning next year going to be considered on the same level as Nicea II, or will it be considered more along the lines of a local council?
In my opinion there can be and in my opinion it can’t be divided for “a kingdom cannot be divided against itself”. I believe someone is part of it by being in full communion with the Pope and leaves it by seperating from him.
Yes I know that is your opinion. I just (as a peer) disagree.
It is currently being called a Pan-Orthodox council, which would put it around the same level as the Pan-Orthodox synod held in Jerusalem in the 17th century. The actual agenda is non-dogmatic, which is a signal that this council might turn out to be one like Trullo, a council convened solely to address administrative issues in the Church at that time.
Just a reminder that although the pope is head of visible church, every other bishop has the God given authority to lead his diocese, i.e., bishops are successors to the apostles in their own right:
dummies.com/how-to/content/the-role-of-catholic-bishops-and-archbishops.html
I already knew that
Ecumenism and phyletism (as certain Catholics never tire of pointing out) have been taken to the point of heresy quite recently, both of which we have been able to deal with without Ecumenical Councils due to a general agreement on how to handle them. And there was the condemnation of Calvinism, although that heresy wasn’t something that was affecting the Orthodox Church, at the Council of Jerusalem (held to be ecumenical by some). Other than that, no
