Question for Oriental Orthodox and Eastern Orthodox Christians...

[joe370]

ConstantineTG;10203968]If a council is determined to be Ecumenical, then it is valid. As I said before, a council is ecumenical if all canonical bishops agree to it. Given that they are agreeing to the council, then it is valid. The Holy Spirit is the spirit of truth and therefore if all bishops agree, that is the truth.

Oh, OK. So an Ecumenical council is valid only when all of the canonical Bishops are present? I am only asking the following question because I do not know: what would constitute “all canonical bishops”?

 

[joe370]

The first Seven Ecumenical Councils are common among Orthodox and Catholics, so I don’t know what you are talking about “how the early CC Ecumenical Councils functioned.” That is exactly how the early CC ecumenical councils functioned.

Agreed. I was simply expressing how glad I was that the early church ecumenical councils did not operate according to the following rules: “Either you have to wait for a few centuries later when it is eventually accepted. If not I think they are quite happy to keep the issue a mystery.”

 

[joe370]

They would be identified by the Consensus of the Bishops. If there is no consensus, it is not an ecumenical council.

I know you’re looking for an easy to see tell, but there isn’t one. Ecumenical Councils are regarded as such over time. With hindsight.

Thank you.

 

[ConstantineTG]

Oh, OK. So an Ecumenical council is valid only when all of the canonical Bishops are present? I am only asking the following question because I do not know: what would constitute “all canonical bishops”?

They don’t have to be present. None of the First Seven had all the bishops. Like I mentioned earlier, one, either the 2nd or 3rd, was a local council but later on was accepted universally. It is acceptance, not attendance, that makes a council ecumenical. And it can still be valid albeit locally. For example, the Council of Trullo is a valid council and accepted by all the Eastern Orthodox Churches. This is prior to the Great Schism. The West did not accept the council, but it is still valid to this day to those Churches that accepted it. So being Ecumenical and being valid are two different things. As long as a council is not condemned or invalidated by another council, then it is valid. Whether it is ecumenical or not depends on how widely accepted the council is. Attendance has nothing to do with it. A bishop may not attend a synod/council but can accept the decrees of the council later on after he has received the decrees and read them.

 

[ConstantineTG]

Agreed. I was simply expressing how glad I was that the early church ecumenical councils did not operate according to the following rules: “Either you have to wait for a few centuries later when it is eventually accepted. If not I think they are quite happy to keep the issue a mystery.”

Actually they did operate that way. And it is not quite as simple as keeping things a mystery. If there were two sides to a discussion, then people normally took one side over another together with their clergy. Although I do not think a council waited for a century to become Ecumenical. I could be wrong here, but things got resolved within 50 years from the original council that becomes declared ecumenical. Usually if there is still disagreement after one council, then another council or two is not far off from happening. And when they finally resolve it, they declare the original council that made the proclamation of the orthodox faith as the one that is Ecumenical, and not the council when they resolved all their differences.

 

[joe370]

They don’t have to be present. None of the First Seven had all the bishops. Like I mentioned earlier, one, either the 2nd or 3rd, was a local council but later on was accepted universally. It is acceptance, not attendance, that makes a council ecumenical. And it can still be valid albeit locally. For example, the Council of Trullo is a valid council and accepted by all the Eastern Orthodox Churches. This is prior to the Great Schism. The West did not accept the council, but it is still valid to this day to those Churches that accepted it. So being Ecumenical and being valid are two different things. As long as a council is not condemned or invalidated by another council, then it is valid. Whether it is ecumenical or not depends on how widely accepted the council is. Attendance has nothing to do with it. A bishop may not attend a synod/council but can accept the decrees of the council later on after he has received the decrees and read them.

One more question if you don’t mind: Is it safe to say (if in fact, hypothetically, some sort of modern day Arianism, for example, began to surface) that representation, in some form, from each autocephalous church, would be be expected, but not required, to constitute a valid Ecumenical council?

 

[joe370]

Actually they did operate that way. And it is not quite as simple as keeping things a mystery. If there were two sides to a discussion, then people normally took one side over another together with their clergy. Although I do not think a council waited for a century to become Ecumenical. I could be wrong here, but things got resolved within 50 years from the original council that becomes declared ecumenical. Usually if there is still disagreement after one council, then another council or two is not far off from happening. And when they finally resolve it, they declare the original council that made the proclamation of the orthodox faith as the one that is Ecumenical, and not the council when they resolved all their differences.

 

[ConstantineTG]

One more question if you don’t mind: Is it safe to say (if in fact, hypothetically, some sort of modern day Arianism, for example, began to surface) that representation, in some form, from each autocephalous church, would be be expected, but not required, to constitute a valid Ecumenical council?

In that same council I said that was a local council that became ecumenical, the West was not represented at all. Because it was meant to be local, initially. The West eventually accepted the council. Attendance is really besides the point if you are accepting the results anyways. Some people who attended are the ones on the other side, and didn’t accept the council. So representation isn’t necessary.

I think it was the Fourth or Fifth Ecumenical Council where the Pope was invited, he was in Constantinople at that time (the Papacy was in exile) and yet the Pope did not attend.

 

[Reuben_J]

Hmmm…Well, thank God that was not how the early CC Ecumenical Councils functioned.

Rightly as we know of it, a council is not to issue new doctrine but rather to spell out what has been already believed. The Church being the keeper of the deposit of faith would merely agree or disagree on what is put in writing by the Council. That should not take centuries to decide otherwise we can say that if it is so, it will render the Church ineffective. And that was not what Jesus had in mind when he gave Peter the key. Anyway that’s from our perspective but then the Orthodox is a different church anyway.

 

[joe370]

In that same council I said that was a local council that became ecumenical, the West was not represented at all. Because it was meant to be local, initially. The West eventually accepted the council. Attendance is really besides the point if you are accepting the results anyways. Some people who attended are the ones on the other side, and didn’t accept the council. So representation isn’t necessary.

I think it was the Fourth or Fifth Ecumenical Council where the Pope was invited, he was in Constantinople at that time (the Papacy was in exile) and yet the Pope did not attend.

I was curious as to how the EO and OO churches spelled out the criteria for how the ordinary Christian is supposed to know when an Ecumenical Council is valid, and you have been very helpful. Thank you. Still some things on my mind, but no biggie…

 

[joe370]

Rightly as we know of it, a council is not to issue new doctrine but rather to spell out what has been already believed. The Church being the keeper of the deposit of faith would merely agree or disagree on what is put in writing by the Council. That should not take centuries to decide otherwise we can say that if it is so,** it will render the Church ineffective. **And that was not what Jesus had in mind when he gave Peter the key. Anyway that’s from our perspective but then the Orthodox is a different church anyway.

That’s kind of what I was thinking… The Catholic Church (keeper of the deposit of faith) is the Ecumenical Council in action - right?

 

[Reuben_J]

That’s kind of what I was thinking… The Catholic Church (keeper of the deposit of faith) is the Ecumenical Council in action - right?

It can be said that way but obviously the decision of a Council cannot be unanimous by all the attending bishops. That is impractical. If that’s the case, all one needs is an eccentric bishop to put the Council useless. The Church needs a leader as Jesus is a leader. The unique wisdom of the Lord is that he can foresee the chaos would be for the Church without such appointed leadership or OTOH a Church that would be paralysed not able to move on without a central leadership to make the decision.

A good example as in the other thread, even the apostles among themselves can disagree in their (name removed by moderator)ut. Sometimes that’s good but ultimately they would submit to the authority, that’s the leadership among them.

 

[joe370]

It can be said that way but obviously the decision of a Council cannot be unanimous by all the attending bishops. That is impractical. If that’s the case, all one needs is an eccentric bishop to put the Council useless. The Church needs a leader as Jesus is a leader. The unique wisdom of the Lord is that he can foresee the chaos would be for the Church without such appointed leadership or OTOH a Church that would be paralysed not able to move on without a central leadership to make the decision.

A good example as in the other thread, even the apostles among themselves can disagree in their (name removed by moderator)ut. Sometimes that’s good but ultimately they would submit to the authority, that’s the leadership among them.

Well said; agreed!

 

[ConstantineTG]

Rightly as we know of it, a council is not to issue new doctrine but rather to spell out what has been already believed. The Church being the keeper of the deposit of faith would merely agree or disagree on what is put in writing by the Council. That should not take centuries to decide otherwise we can say that if it is so, it will render the Church ineffective. And that was not what Jesus had in mind when he gave Peter the key. Anyway that’s from our perspective but then the Orthodox is a different church anyway.

By the same measure, the Fathers of the Council cannot decide on matters right there and then. Remember that the issues came up because there were differing opinions on something that is not clearly defined or clearly spelled out. Even in the Papal Councils things weren’t decided in a matter of days or weeks. Often today, possibly because of experience and also the speed of communications, the issue is discussed beforehand and enough research is done going into a council.

I would also say that Jesus didn’t had in mind a supreme infallible ruler other than himself. But that is for another discussion

 

[ConstantineTG]

I was curious as to how the EO and OO churches spelled out the criteria for how the ordinary Christian is supposed to know when an Ecumenical Council is valid, and you have been very helpful. Thank you. Still some things on my mind, but no biggie…

It is not easy to grasp the difference between Orthodoxy and Catholicism. I took my time as well. In the beginning it did not make sense to me, but I read a lot and listened to a lot to podcasts from Ancient Faith Radio regarding the topic. It does make more sense to me now why a consensus of all is important rather than the decree of one.

 

[joe370]

It is not easy to grasp the difference between Orthodoxy and Catholicism. I took my time as well. In the beginning it did not make sense to me, but I read a lot and listened to a lot to podcasts from Ancient Faith Radio regarding the topic. It does make more sense to me now why a consensus of all is important rather than the decree of one.

In the CC it’s not an either - or situation. Right? It too is based, in large part, on an ecumenical consensus. The infallibility promised to the Church is also present in the body of bishops when, together with Peter’s successor, they exercise the supreme Magisterium, above all in an Ecumenical Council. Is there a time when a pope made an arbitrary decision from the chair without convoking via council? I cannot think of one.

 

[joe370]

By the same measure, the Fathers of the Council cannot decide on matters right there and then. Remember that the issues came up because there were differing opinions on something that is not clearly defined or clearly spelled out. Even in the Papal Councils things weren’t decided in a matter of days or weeks. Often today, possibly because of experience and also the speed of communications, the issue is discussed beforehand and enough research is done going into a council.

I would also say that Jesus didn’t had in mind a supreme infallible ruler other than himself. But that is for another discussion

It is for another discussion, but I think we all know that no one is claiming human infallibility. That, I eventually learned, is not what papal infallibility is about. Perhaps I will start a thread…

 

[ConstantineTG]

In the CC it’s not an either - or situation. Right? It too is based, in large part, on an ecumenical consensus. The infallibility promised to the Church is also present in the body of bishops when, together with Peter’s successor, they exercise the supreme Magisterium, above all in an Ecumenical Council. Is there a time when a pope made an arbitrary decision from the chair without convoking via council? I cannot think of one.

The thing about conciliarity is that no one bishop is set apart above the rest. No one specific bishop makes or breaks an ecumenical council. Vatican II has been declared Ecumenical, despite opposition from canonically Catholic bishops (the SSPX). So obviously something has been declared Ecumenical without the full unity of all the bishops in the Catholic Church.

 

[joe370]

The thing about conciliarity is that no one bishop is set apart above the rest. No one specific bishop makes or breaks an ecumenical council. Vatican II has been declared Ecumenical, despite opposition from canonically Catholic bishops (the SSPX). So obviously something has been declared Ecumenical without the full unity of all the bishops in the Catholic Church.

The thing about conciliarity is that no one bishop is set apart above the rest, like you mentioned, meaning that the following could never happen within Eastern Orthodoxy, regarding any one bishop of any one self-governing church - correct:

“Pope Benedict XVI has declared that, for doctrinal rather than disciplinary reasons, the SSPX has no canonical status in the Catholic Church and, because of that lack of canonical status, the ministries exercised by its ministers are not legitimate in the Church.”

So, if this happened within Eastern Orthodoxy, regarding one or more autocephalous churches, as opposed to the SSPX, then how could an Ecumenical Council still be possible within Orthodoxy, since, as you claim, it’s not possible within Catholicism, without the full unity of all the bishops in the Catholic Church?

Perhaps ecclesial unity, via the Petrine office, or whatever one wants to call it, when conciliarity discord occurs, is a viable solution? Maybe, just maybe that was why Jesus said: “And I tell you that you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of Hades will not overcome it.”

If you are right then what other way would there be for the CC to once again, declare something ecumenically, since, as you put it, the full unity of all the bishops in the Catholic Church has been lost?

 

[IgnatianPhilo]

In either the Oriental Orthodox or the Eastern Orthodox Church, in the 21st century, how exactly would an Ecumenical Council be identified as being valid? Let’s exclude the various folks who might be opposed to the decisions of a valid Ecumenical Council since they would not be part of the decision-making process during a valid Ecumenical Council e.g. Arianism or the CC, as you pointed out, when a “great deal of controversy over the idea of infallibility” occurred. leading to many breaking away from the decision-making process of a valid Ecumenical Council.

Well it would have to be recognised. I think we’ve already said this. Take in mind that during Nicea not even some of the great trinitarian fathers accepted it immediately because of suspicions towards it.