Orthodoxy and its paralysis

[w_stewart]

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.

The four patriarchates staged a massive withdrawal of support from Rome. That makes sense.

 

[w_stewart]

That’s funny, I’ve heard from many Orthodox that there cannot be another EC because there is no Emperor.

Orthodox Churches depended so much on secular rulers for an ecumenical council to be convened. So that’s it.

 

[holdencaulfield]

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?

Yes, this is true, however like someone else said, they do not have the authority to call an Ecumenical Council without the authority of the Pope. Without the Papal Authority no Ecumenical Council could be Infallible.

 

[jimmy]

You wrote that they did not have a Reformation. But, the Reformation came to Russia and Eastern Europe. So, Trent was battling a world wide problem. And former Orthodox are leaving by droves to Protestantism.

I think that is mostlikely an overstatement. Russia might be 1% protestant after 500 years of the reformation. It’s like saying the Italians are embracing the reformation. It isn’t happening.

Yes, I said they didn’t have a reformation and I was correct. There might be protestant missionaries who enter Russia to try to convert them ‘to Christiainity’ but that is not the same as there being rebellion within the Russian Church where some bishops and priests determine to follow the reformers.

 

[Madaglan]

You wrote that they did not have a Reformation. But, the Reformation came to Russia and Eastern Europe. So, Trent was battling a world wide problem. And former Orthodox are leaving by droves to Protestantism.

I think you’re inflating the situation. The churches of the Reformation spread to areas of Eastern Europe. Yes, you are right in this one respect. My grandfather comes from the Carpatho-Rusyn area (Eastern Slovakia) and yet his family was Lutheran, not Catholic or Orthodox. But the impact of the Reformation was significantly less in Orthodox countries than in the Western countries. Many Orthodox churches were in areas controlled by the Turks, and so were mostly off-limits to Western Christians. The Reformation never made strong in-roads into Russia.

In any case, Orthodox Christians do not deny Reformation people came to Eastern Europe; but they will note that the Eastern churches rejected their beliefs. They rejected the Lutheran beliefs brought forth by the Melanchathon delegation, and even when one of their patriarchs turned Calvinist, they rejected him as a heretic!

Many Catholics have left in droves to Protestantism, especially following Vatican II. There are Orthodox, too, who have left for Protestantism. Numerous Protestants, in the U.S. and elsewhere, have become Orthodox. I know of entire Protestant churches that converted to Orthodoxy. So, your claim has no real impact.

 

[Madaglan]

Orthodox Churches depended so much on secular rulers for an ecumenical council to be convened. So that’s it.

Well, according to the Latin Church, the Pope is a secular ruler in his own right–or rather, he has the fullness of power that extends to secular rule, to temporal matters.

Although the Pope no longer speaks of his temporal authority, he never has retracted it.

 

[zagjames]

Well, according to the Latin Church, the Pope is a secular ruler in his own right–or rather, he has the fullness of power that extends to secular rule, to temporal matters.

Although the Pope no longer speaks of his temporal authority, he never has retracted it.

well why would he he would no longer hold the vatican state… would you want to give up that property to secularists… it allowes him to opperate freely from local governments…

 

[holdencaulfield]

well why would he he would no longer hold the vatican state… would you want to give up that property to secularists… it allowes him to opperate freely from local governments…

That’s true. Although the country of Vatican City is a product of Italian nationalism, it is still good for the Pope, because now he can govern himself.

 

[Hesychios]

Yes, this is true, however like someone else said, they do not have the authority to call an Ecumenical Council without the authority of the Pope. Without the Papal Authority no Ecumenical Council could be Infallible.

Untrue.

All that is required a an intent to gather, and the gathering of the bishops, it is the combined authority of the bishops, and the subsequent acceptance by the church at large, which make a council infallible. Call it what you like.

Now I am beginning to think eastern and western Christians are not in full agreement as to what infallibility of a Council implies. It is not a type of perfection. One Council can reverse the decision of a prior council. One bishop cannot do that, but a subsequent Council can.

The notion is the Paraclete is with us, and the actions of a council of bishops are acceptable to the Holy Spirit.

No Good Housekeeping Seal required. If the church at large accepts it that’s a good thing.

The title of ecumenical originally did mean the empire. The theory was there should be one earthly kingdom under God. I suppose the Romans had harbored a notion that theirs was it. They had suddenly developed great ambitions for a single worldwide Christian State (other states have since thought that way too at times). When the First Ecumenical Council was called virtually everyone who was a Christian was already within the bounds of the Roman State (which paid the costs for the gathering, BTW). (Armenia may have been independent at that point, and there were some colonies of Christians elsewhere, like India).

Thus, this was much more than the regional councils of bishops of the previous two hundred years, it was essentially all the regional councils meeting simultaneously, in effect. That’s what made it so important and why it was so readily accepted across the church. There is no magic to it.

The bishop of Rome would not have chaired the Council, it was hosted in Nicea. He would have received just one vote, like any other bishop in attendance. Naturally they would have been interested in his opinions, being from such an important See. But the bishop did not even attend and whether or not he would have liked it, the Council did not need him. The same is true today.

Anything the Latin church teaches about that differently today is evolved thinking that did not hold true at the time.

 

[holdencaulfield]

@Hesychios:

However you cannot deny that no Council has ever been accepted without at least representation from the Pope. To say that one could be held otherwise would contradict the Holy Tradition.

 

[Madaglan]

well why would he he would no longer hold the vatican state… would you want to give up that property to secularists… it allowes him to opperate freely from local governments…

The Pope once had more than the Vatican state as it now exists. He once had a larger territory and armies with which he made war on other Italian states. He made demands on other secular rulers.

My point is not to say that the Pope should abandon his territory, but that a personage, such as the Emperor, who held temporal authority, could be used by God for something great in the Church.

 

[Hesychios]

@Hesychios:

However you cannot deny that no Council has ever been accepted without at least representation from the Pope. To say that one could be held otherwise would contradict the Holy Tradition.

Representaion from the bishop of Rome? There was always representation from each of the Ancient Apostolic Sees.

There is nothing that distinguishes Rome from the others here.

What is notable is that the bishop of Rome opposed the calling of some Councils (I forget which ones) and they were held and became effective anyway. Even canons the bishops of Rome opposed became effective in the east over their objections. That would not happen today in the western church, big change for that church.

Michael

 

[ASimpleSinner]

Untrue.

All that is required a an intent to gather, and the gathering of the bishops, it is the combined authority of the bishops, and the subsequent acceptance by the church at large, which make a council infallible. Call it what you like.

Now I am beginning to think eastern and western Christians are not in full agreement as to what infallibility of a Council implies. It is not a type of perfection. One Council can reverse the decision of a prior council. One bishop cannot do that, but a subsequent Council can.

I am trying to understand your thinking on this matter. What number must be achieved in a gathering of bishops to create essentially a “council quorum” when in fact most early councils were attended by less than 15% of the world’s episcopate.

From there - the idea of “Patriarchs giving assent” is difficult to understand for me at at least two levels:

1. 
   *]When they fail to offer assent when do we know that the council is still valid but they are just now in schism and heresy (a la Nestorians or monophosytes)?
   *]What is the thinking you have to support that patriarchal sees enjoy some sort of authority beyond dignity because they are named patriarchs?
   
   Can you perhaps also address issues where a councils HAS reversed a prior council’s decision?

 

[Peter_J]

Untrue.

All that is required a an intent to gather, and the gathering of the bishops, it is the combined authority of the bishops, and the subsequent acceptance by the church at large, which make a council infallible. Call it what you like.

It is a Catholic teaching, however, that acceptance by the Pope is a necessary condition for an Ecumenical Council. (Incidentally, some Catholics have suggested that acceptance by the Pope is a necessary and sufficient condition for an Ecumenical Council.)

I suppose there could be infallible councils that are not ecumenical councils, but I don’t know of any.