W
w_stewart
Guest
When the Orthodox Churches broke away from the Church of Rome, no single Ecumenical council had been ever convened by them. Is this not a clear evidence of their paralysis outside the authority of the Pope?
- Status
H
Hastrman
Guest
Um…no, since they were separated from Rome–therefore not everyone could come, therefore they couldn’t consider it an “ecumenical” council as they view the term.
That was easy, wasn’t it?
That was easy, wasn’t it?
W
w_stewart
Guest
But the Catholic Church was able to convene Ecumenical Councils with the absence of the Orthodox Churches.source In this case, the Catholic Church under the Pope is not paralyzed, the Orthodox Church is.
H
Hastrman
Guest
No, they have a different conception of what constitutes an ecumenical council, and refuse to hold one without Rome.
That said, Rome did, in fact, need some councils, in order to define doctrines that came into question in the intervening years. Being the “First among Equals” means you’re the “First” (and only), if your “equals” are in schism with you. I do think it was an admirable, if probably impractical, act on the Orthodox’s part, to not convene any councils until the schism was healed.
W
w_stewart
Guest
What is in my mind is that they have not convened an Ecumenical Council since their divorce from the Catholic Church is that they do not have a single leader who would call the shot. Before, they heavily depended on secular rulers for a council to be convened. With the absence of a secular ruler who represents all Orthodox Churches, it is impossible to convene an Ecumenical Council.
M
Milliardo
Guest
An Ecumenical Council could only be convened if both East and West are united and represented equally in Council. It cannot be called an Ecumenical Council if one side is not present or represented; hence, the Orthodox Church has not convened any Ecumenical Council with Rome’s departure from Orthodoxy, and in the Orthodox Church’s view Rome has not held any “Ecumenical” Council since none of the other Patriarchates were present or represented in Council. Thus, for Orthodoxy what Rome held were local Councils that represent only its portion of the Church, not the Church as a whole.
W
w_stewart
Guest
So the Church of Christ has been divided into two and the one, holy, catholic, and apostolic Church is no longer one but one half each side?
M
Milliardo
Guest
No, it is still the same one, holy, catholic and apostolic Church; however, that should not mean that we have to deny the reality of the Church not united. The Church is still one under Christ, as Paul himself said that Christ cannot be divided. So, on a human level there is a separation; we must admit to that fact. On a spiritual level, we are all under Christ’s leadership, thus whether East or West we are still brothers and sisters in Christ.
Z
zagjames
Guest
We still have the E. Catholic Churches and their patriarchs. So the councils were ecumenical. All non-schismatic christians were represented at them.
H
Hesychios
Guest
You wish to discredit Holy Orthodoxy, but to what purpose? What are you afraid of…that the Orthodox church can make every claim to antiquity and True Faith your church attempts to make?
We have not needed to call our Councils “ecumenical” councils, we have had Pan Orthodox Councils occasionally which have taken care of business at hand.
Your own church refrains from calling the subsequent Roman councils Ecumenical as well. They are normally these days referred to as General Councils of the West.
You attack Holy Orthodoxy as if it were some kind of enemy, and use insults like paralysis. But our constancy and steady conservativism is our strength. With us our prayer is our belief, and our liturgy is our catechism. It is a very organic, very ancient church. We have not experienced your “modern” developments, and do not want them. We have deep, very deep roots and anyone who takes a close look at us with eyes respect will see the church of the Apostles in us.
You have nothing to fear from us, we are not attacking you. Why do you use this Catholic Answers forum as a platform for your hate?
You are nothing at all like your Supreme Pontiffs, who seem to respect and genuinely appreciate us.
http://www.30giorni.it/foto/1080297434898.jpg
The kiss of Peace
http://www.bostontheological.org/archive/spring7/pope_patriarch.jpg
(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)
W
w_stewart
Guest
My apologies bro. Michael. As you could see my original post, I was asking a question, and I honestly did not intend to insult or attack whatsoever the Orthodox Churches.
G
Gottle_of_Geer
Guest
**The photographs are nice. **
**Have you a RC or Vatican source for those last two sentences
? And has the Vatican changed the status of those councils actually rather than in words ? If they are no longer Councils of the whole Church, one wonders what has happened to all those infallible dogmas they defined - why should we RCs bother with transub’ion or papal primacy of jurisdiction, if the rest of the Church can deny them ? Hence the question. ****Thank you in advance.
**
M
Mickey
Guest
Gottle of Geer;3658452**why should we RCs bother with transub’ion or papal primacy of jurisdiction said:
M
Mickey
Guest
I thought that Rome broke away from the other four Patriarchates.
M
Milliardo
Guest
Well, it depends on whom you ask. For the Orthodox, Rome broke away from the Church. For Catholics, it is the Orthodox who did…I thought that Rome broke away from the other four Patriarchates.
M
Mickey
Guest
Yeah, I understand. But it does not make sense that four will break away from one. It makes more sense that one breaks away from four.
R
ralphinal
Guest
Very true, in the normal sence. But if one prince had a larger kingdom than the other four together…if the four felt threatened by the one…Yeah, I understand. But it does not make sense that four will break away from one. It makes more sense that one breaks away from four.
C
Contarini
Guest
R
ralphinal
Guest
Could be…
Why does a Church call an ecuminical council? Primarily to resolve an issue. If you look at the issues of the first millinium of the Faith, most of them were centered in the East and spread. This is not a knock on the East, it was where the oldest Churches were and where the heresies could grow the fastest.
In the last 1000 years, most of the issues have been in the West. Lots of reasons for this that are not important. It became crucial for the Catholic Church to call councils to deal with these issues. As many of them were not issues in the East, there was no need for council. Now, is this the same as saying that the East ignored issues that were there? No. They have herecies in their lands too. None of them have required a council, yet.
M
Mickey
Guest
Size does not matter.
- Status