Question for Oriental Orthodox and Eastern Orthodox Christians...

[joe370]

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.

Saying, “well it would have to be recognized”, in and of itself does not explain how an Ecumenical Council can be identified as being valid? The concensus posited by ConstantineTG seems pretty plausible with one exception:

It becomes somewhat untenable from a historical point of view, given the schisms after Ephesus and Chalcedon.

 

[ConstantineTG]

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:

Sorry but I’m not understanding what your point here is. Can you elaborate?

“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?

The SSPX has no canonical status as a society, but their clergy are pretty much Catholic clergy. In Orthodoxy, if a bishop opposes a council, then that council cannot be ecumenical. Now, if there is grounds from other established canons, the synod where that bishop belongs to can depose the bishop and appoint a replacement. That replacement can the either agree to the council or not. Of course there is a political nature here, they will surely appoint a bishop that would agree to the council. Now how do we protect the Church from political maneuverings? That is why the other Churches and other synods are not in any way under any influence of another Church synod. So let us say the Russians did it this way, they deposed one bishop and replaced with another who all agree to something. The Greek Church is still a check-and-balance against the Russian Church. None of the Greek bishops is under the Russian synod, so if the Greeks disagree with the Russians, then they will dialogue between the two Churches.

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.”

But what is a church? It is not one person. Even Christ is not alone in His Church. He is the head, but we are the body. To say that one man is the hinge of the entire Church makes no sense. The hinge is Christ. Also the conciliarity of the Church is in agreement with the other doctrines of the faith. The Trinity are equal, so it doesn’t make sense that the Church, which is the body of Christ, has a structure that is not consistent with the Trinity. The Church should mirror God, as God is the communion of 3 equal persons, so does the Church is a communion of equal bishops. While there is an order to the Trinity, there is an order too with the bishops. But order doesn’t necessarily mean authority. Certain bishops may be assigned administrative functions over other bishops, but not as a ruler to them. Metropolitans are not the boss of the diocesan bishops. Patriarchs are not the boss of Metropolitans.

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?

I did not say it has been lost completely. It was just not present for Vatican II, nor Vatican I. The Melkites did not agree to Vatican I without the amendments suggested by their Patriarch, which to this day has not been added by the Vatican. It is right that the Vatican continues to dialogue with the SSPX bishops. But given the current ecclesiology of the Catholic Church, the Vatican has the right to impose. If they were the Orthodox, they would need to dialogue until both sides agree, or they can just depose the SSPX bishops. Technically this happened with the excommunications but that has since been lifted.

 

[ConstantineTG]

Saying, “well it would have to be recognized”, in and of itself does not explain how an Ecumenical Council can be identified as being valid? The concensus posited by ConstantineTG seems pretty plausible with one exception:

It becomes somewhat untenable from a historical point of view, given the schisms after Ephesus and Chalcedon.

Those who schism aren’t counted anymore among those who need to accept. They are no longer Catholic or Orthodox, depending on which perspective you want to take. But when they schismed then they do not belong to the Church anymore. So why do we need their approval? It’s like saying the Old Catholics needed to approve Vatican II to become Ecumenical.

 

[joe370]

Those who schism aren’t counted anymore among those who need to accept. They are no longer Catholic or Orthodox, depending on which perspective you want to take. But when they schismed then they do not belong to the Church anymore. So why do we need their approval? It’s like saying the Old Catholics needed to approve Vatican II to become Ecumenical.

Well, that was sort of my point, indirectly…

 

[IgnatianPhilo]

Saying, “well it would have to be recognized”, in and of itself does not explain how an Ecumenical Council can be identified as being valid? The concensus posited by ConstantineTG seems pretty plausible with one exception:

It becomes somewhat untenable from a historical point of view, given the schisms after Ephesus and Chalcedon.

If the universal church as a whole by consensus agrees to the church then yes, this is what determines a council. You seem to have this assumption that the pope is what makes a council Legitimate, this was not the case. If it were as you seem to imply then everyone everywhere would have recognised Nicea instead of giving it suspicion.

 

[joe370]

If the universal church as a whole by consensus agrees to the church then yes, this is what determines a council. You seem to have this assumption that the pope is what makes a council Legitimate, this was not the case. If it were as you seem to imply then everyone everywhere would have recognised Nicea instead of giving it suspicion.

Why would that imply that everyone everywhere would have recognized Nicaea instead of giving it suspicion? People have free will and therefore can choose to reject…

 

[joe370]

If the universal church as a whole by consensus agrees to the church then yes, this is what determines a council. You seem to have this assumption that the pope is what makes a council Legitimate, this was not the case. If it were as you seem to imply then everyone everywhere would have recognised Nicea instead of giving it suspicion.

The Pope, as the visible head of the church, working hand in hand with the Ecumenical Council? Yes, that seems reasonable, biblical and historical. Of course I certainly understand the Eastern perspective: the autocephalous (governed by their own head bishops) churches, are in no need of a visible head to maintain its overall unity in exercising responsibility for the universal Church.

 

[ConstantineTG]

The Pope, as the visible head of the church, working hand in hand with the Ecumenical Council? Yes, that seems reasonable, biblical and historical. Of course I certainly understand the Eastern perspective: the autocephalous (governed by their own head bishops) churches, are in no need of a visible head to maintain its overall unity in exercising responsibility for the universal Church.

The East is adamant to maintain that Christ is the only head, as stated many times in Scripture. We are all part of the body, including our bishops. Our point of communion among ourselves is our bishop, and our bishops are in communion with one another and with Christ. We believe in the guidance of the Holy Spirit within our councils as promised by Christ. And we believe also in the promise of Christ that He is with us always to the end of the ages.

 

[joe370]

ConstantineTG;10204771]Sorry but I’m not understanding what your point here is. Can you elaborate?

Just that there is no visible head of the church universal over all of the self-governing churches, which is why no one bishop could do what the pope did regarding the SSPX.

The SSPX has no canonical status as a society, but their clergy are pretty much Catholic clergy. In Orthodoxy, if a bishop opposes a council, then that council cannot be ecumenical.

OK.

Now, if there is grounds from other established canons, the synod where that bishop belongs to can depose the bishop and appoint a replacement.

I did not know that.

That replacement can the either agree to the council or not. Of course there is a political nature here, they will surely appoint a bishop that would agree to the council.

Of course.

Now how do we protect the Church from political maneuverings? That is why the other Churches and other synods are not in any way under any influence of another Church synod.

Self-governing churches, each with its own visible head.

So let us say the Russians did it this way, they deposed one bishop and replaced with another who all agree to something. The Greek Church is still a check-and-balance against the Russian Church. None of the Greek bishops is under the Russian synod, so if the Greeks disagree with the Russians, then they will dialogue between the two Churches.

But what is a church? It is not one person. Even Christ is not alone in His Church. He is the head, but we are the body.

Agreed. Divine Head.

To say that one man is the hinge of the entire Church makes no sense. The hinge is Christ.

You know the CC agrees with you - right?

Also the conciliarity of the Church is in agreement with the other doctrines of the faith. The Trinity are equal, so it doesn’t make sense that the Church, which is the body of Christ, has a structure that is not consistent with the Trinity.

That’s new, to me anyway.

The Church should mirror God, as God is the communion of 3 equal persons, so does the Church is a communion of equal bishops. While there is an order to the Trinity, there is an order too with the bishops. But order doesn’t necessarily mean authority. Certain bishops may be assigned administrative functions over other bishops, but not as a ruler to them. Metropolitans are not the boss of the diocesan bishops. Patriarchs are not the boss of Metropolitans.

Everyone is equal. I get it.

I did not say it has been lost completely. It was just not present for Vatican II, nor Vatican I. The Melkites did not agree to Vatican I without the amendments suggested by their Patriarch, which to this day has not been added by the Vatican. It is right that the Vatican continues to dialogue with the SSPX bishops. But given the current ecclesiology of the Catholic Church, the Vatican has the right to impose. If they were the Orthodox, they would need to dialogue until both sides agree, or they can just depose the SSPX bishops. Technically this happened with the excommunications but that has since been lifted.

Got it. If they deposed them, an Ecumenical Council would still be possible without them?

 

[joe370]

The East is adamant to maintain that Christ is the only head, as stated many times in Scripture. We are all part of the body, including our bishops. Our point of communion among ourselves is our bishop, and our bishops are in communion with one another and with Christ. We believe in the guidance of the Holy Spirit within our councils as promised by Christ. And we believe also in the promise of Christ that He is with us always to the end of the ages.

Well, Bishops are the visible heads of each self-governing church, even though Jesus is the Divine Head - right?

 

[joe370]

The East is adamant to maintain that Christ is the only head, as stated many times in Scripture. We are all part of the body, including our bishops. Our point of communion among ourselves is our bishop, and our bishops are in communion with one another and with Christ. We believe in the guidance of the Holy Spirit within our councils as promised by Christ. And we believe also in the promise of Christ that He is with us always to the end of the ages.

What was St. Maximus the Confessor (circa AD 650) talking about in the following quote; why should there be any emphasis on the Bishop of Rome, if he is just another Bishop who is part of the Ecumenical Council:

"Let him hasten before all things to satisfy the Roman See, for if it is satisfied, all will agree in calling him pious and orthodox. For he only speaks in vain who thinks he ought to pursuade or entrap persons like myself, and does not satisfy and implore the blessed Pope of the most holy Catholic Church of the Romans, that is, the Apostolic See, which is from the incarnate of the Son of God Himself, and also all the holy synods, according to the holy canons and definitions has received universal and surpreme dominion, authority, and power of binding and loosing over all the holy churches of God throughout the whole world. (Maximus, Letter to Peter, in Mansi x, 692).

 

[ConstantineTG]

Just that there is no visible head of the church universal over all of the self-governing churches, which is why no one bishop could do what the pope did regarding the SSPX.

You don’t need a Pope to do that. People get excommunicated all the time in Orthodoxy. The way the situation would have been resolved would be different in Orthodoxy. In Catholicism no one can take the side of the one who is excommunicated lest they be excommunicated as well. In Orthodoxy it is okay if the sides split, some bishops take the side of, in this example, the SSPX, and some don’t. Then that is when the dialogue begins. What happens right now in Catholicism is that there are SSPX sympathizers, but they cannot fully support the SSPX lest they too are excommunicated or lose their canonical status (talking about the clergy here). In Orthodoxy, such exercises are part of the process. Sure, the two sides will be out of communion for a while, but this would make them, and others, try to resolve the process. Case in point, Russia and Constantinople took each other out from each other’s dyptichs, which means they are no longer in communion with one another. This was an issue with one of the autocephalous Churches (I forgot which one). What happened was that the other autocephalous Churches refused to strike one or the other from their dyptichs, meaning there is still communion among them in some way, and forced the bishops of those two sides to resolve the issue. Which they did. This cannot happen in the Catholic Church, what the Pope says, goes.

Self-governing churches, each with its own visible head.

We’re careful not to say a bishop is a head of a Church. Christ is the only head of the Church. The bishop is part of the body, although he has an administrative role over us, nonetheless he is among us in the body.

You know the CC agrees with you - right?

I don’t know, there have been many things said about the Papacy over the centuries, which caused my doubt in that office.

That’s new, to me anyway.

Conciliarity is in the bible, that is why there are 12 Apostles. That is why there is a Council of Jerusalem in Acts, and James made the decision even though Peter was there.

Got it. If they deposed them, an Ecumenical Council would still be possible without them?

Of course. If they are deposed, they are no longer clergy. If they are anathemized, they are no longer part of the Church.

 

[ConstantineTG]

What was St. Maximus the Confessor (circa AD 650) talking about in the following quote; why should there be any emphasis on the Bishop of Rome, if he is just another Bishop who is part of the Ecumenical Council:

"Let him hasten before all things to satisfy the Roman See, for if it is satisfied, all will agree in calling him pious and orthodox. For he only speaks in vain who thinks he ought to pursuade or entrap persons like myself, and does not satisfy and implore the blessed Pope of the most holy Catholic Church of the Romans, that is, the Apostolic See, which is from the incarnate of the Son of God Himself, and also all the holy synods, according to the holy canons and definitions has received universal and surpreme dominion, authority, and power of binding and loosing over all the holy churches of God throughout the whole world. (Maximus, Letter to Peter, in Mansi x, 692).

Read this… saintjonah.org/articles/maximos1.htm

 

[joe370]

ConstantineTG;10207206]You don’t need a Pope to do that. People get excommunicated all the time in Orthodoxy. The way the situation would have been resolved would be different in Orthodoxy. In Catholicism no one can take the side of the one who is excommunicated lest they be excommunicated as well. In Orthodoxy it is okay if the sides split, some bishops take the side of, in this example, the SSPX, and some don’t. Then that is when the dialogue begins.

And if an impasse is reached, due to the fact that both sides cannot reach a workable solution, then what?

What happens right now in Catholicism is that there are SSPX sympathizers, but they cannot fully support the SSPX lest they too are excommunicated or lose their canonical status (talking about the clergy here).

Someone within each and every church should be in a position to speak authoritatively, otherwise, division and discord will ensue.

In Orthodoxy, such exercises are part of the process. Sure, the two sides will be out of communion for a while, but this would make them, and others, try to resolve the process.

And if they cannot resolve the issue, then part ways until someone compromises…

Case in point, Russia and Constantinople took each other out from each other’s dyptichs, which means they are no longer in communion with one another. This was an issue with one of the autocephalous Churches (I forgot which one). What happened was that the other autocephalous Churches refused to strike one or the other from their dyptichs, meaning there is still communion among them in some way, and forced the bishops of those two sides to resolve the issue. Which they did. This cannot happen in the Catholic Church, what the Pope says, goes.

So the visible head of the CC could not force the bishops of those two sides to resolve the issue, but it is OK in the EOC?

We’re careful not to say a bishop is a head of a Church. Christ is the only head of the Church. The bishop is part of the body, although he has an administrative role over us, nonetheless he is among us in the body.

So bishops are not the visible head of the respective self-governing churches? OK.

I don’t know, there have been many things said about the Papacy over the centuries, which caused my doubt in that office.

That’s cool. I understand.

Conciliarity is in the bible, that is why there are 12 Apostles. That is why there is a Council of Jerusalem in Acts, and James made the decision even though Peter was there.

If Jame’s decision was all that was needed then why the need for Peter to say:

“After much discussion, Peter got up and addressed them: “Brothers, you know that some time ago God made a choice among you that the Gentiles might hear from my lips the message of the gospel and believe…”

Of course. If they are deposed, they are no longer clergy. If they are anathemized, they are no longer part of the Church.

 

[joe370]

Read this… saintjonah.org/articles/maximos1.htm

Thanks, I will. Regarding ecclesial structure, the primary difference seems to be:

In the EOCs, each self-governing church requires (although not considered the visible head) a bishop to maintain its unity, and the college of bishops, (comprised of all the self-governing churches) needs no bishop at the top to maintain its overall unity in exercising responsibility for the universal Church.

In the CC the same principle applied at the local level e.g. each diocese, is also also applied at the universal level, with the visible head of the church universal working hand in hand with the visible college.

That, to my mind, is the primary difference between Orthodoxy and Catholicism in terms of organizational structure…

Your thoughts?

 

[ConstantineTG]

And if an impasse is reached, due to the fact that both sides cannot reach a workable solution, then what?

Schism.

And don’t tell me the Pope has been able to resolve every issue in the Catholic Church. There have been many groups that have schismed from Rome as well.

Someone within each and every church should be in a position to speak authoritatively, otherwise, division and discord will ensue.

There is an order within the Church, but it is not about authority over one another. As Jesus said, the Apostles (and thus the Bishops) should be the servants of all. This is not metaphorically, he really meant it literally. Their role is to shepherd us in faith, not to rule over us and we owe him our submission. If one has authority, then what we accept is just a matter of that person’s authority, not truth. We believe in truth and truth does not need to come from one who is in authority. If a bishop teaches heresy and a child speaks about orthodoxy, should we believe in the bishop? There is a dichotomy between authority and truth, who has authority doesn’t necessarily have the truth.

And if they cannot resolve the issue, then part ways until someone compromises…

Yes, as unfortunate as it seems. But going back to the truth again, do you think someone should compromise the truth for the sake of unity? That is why Christ said he brought a sword, not peace. This is when in relation to the truth. Our love of Christ should be above our love for anyone else, we shouldn’t be united for the sake of unity, we should be united for the sake of truth.

So the visible head of the CC could not force the bishops of those two sides to resolve the issue, but it is OK in the EOC?

Forced may be the wrong term here. They certainly had no authority to force both sides to talk, but they can do whatever they can within the limits set forth to get the two sides talking and resolving their issues. Remember, we are a family, when your brothers quarrel, you find ways to get them to reconcile even though you have no authority over them.

So bishops are not the visible head of the respective self-governing churches? OK.

It may be counter-polemical language. The Orthodox are trying to move away from any insinuation that the episcopate is a position of authority. The Orthodox have had their share of abuses, its good to learn from the mistakes. Certainly a Church cannot be without a bishop, but a Church also cannot be without those gathered around the bishop.

That’s cool. I understand.

If Jame’s decision was all that was needed then why the need for Peter to say:

“After much discussion, Peter got up and addressed them: “Brothers, you know that some time ago God made a choice among you that the Gentiles might hear from my lips the message of the gospel and believe…”

Peter was giving an account of the revelation given to him by God. James wasn’t going to decide solely on his whim.

 

[joe370]

=

ConstantineTG;10207560]Schism.

And don’t tell me the Pope has been able to resolve every issue in the Catholic Church. There have been many groups that have schismed from Rome as well.

The Pope does not resolve anything in isolation. And, you are right: There have been many groups that have schismed from Rome as well!

There is an order within the Church, but it is not about authority over one another. As Jesus said, the Apostles (and thus the Bishops) should be the servants of all.

As per the Catholic Church.

This is not metaphorically, he really meant it literally. Their role is to shepherd us in faith, not to rule over us and we owe him our submission.

As per the Catholic Church as well.

If one has authority, then what we accept is just a matter of that person’s authority, not truth. We believe in truth and truth does not need to come from one who is in authority. If a bishop teaches heresy and a child speaks about orthodoxy, should we believe in the bishop? There is a dichotomy between authority and truth, who has authority doesn’t necessarily have the truth.

Interesting…So, each respective bishop and, when needed, the college of eastern orthodox bishops as a whole, speak authoritatively, but not always regarding truth? Sometimes a child can be right, vs the bishop?

Yes, as unfortunate as it seems. But going back to the truth again, do you think someone should compromise the truth for the sake of unity?

No. I would not believe the teaching office of the CC, comprised of all sinful and fallible leaders, if I did not believe that God was ineffably guiding the process, until His return. Regarding the preservation of doctrinal truth: God get’s all the credit.

That is why Christ said he brought a sword, not peace. This is when in relation to the truth. Our love of Christ should be above our love for anyone else, we shouldn’t be united for the sake of unity, we should be united for the sake of truth.

Forced may be the wrong term here. They certainly had no authority to force both sides to talk, but they can do whatever they can within the limits set forth to get the two sides talking and resolving their issues. Remember, we are a family, when your brothers quarrel, you find ways to get them to reconcile even though you have no authority over them.

Good point.

It may be counter-polemical language. The Orthodox are trying to move away from any insinuation that the episcopate is a position of authority.

Even on the local level e.g. each and every self-governing church? OK.

The Orthodox have had their share of abuses, its good to learn from the mistakes. Certainly a Church cannot be without a bishop, but a Church also cannot be without those gathered around the bishop.

Even scripture reminds us that scandal is inevitable…

Peter was giving an account of the revelation given to him by God. James wasn’t going to decide solely on his whim.

It seems like James was speaking on behalf of the particular church in Jerusalem and Peter on behalf of the church universal. But that is just my take on it.