Questions from an Eastern Orthodox Christian.

[ComeHome2Rome]

Can you please be a little more clear on what you mean by broad? As the first post questioned, are we talking about 90% of the Church? 80%? 60%? 51%? And who determines if its broad enough anyway?

Leave it up to us Latins to want a more specific definition while the Orthodox are content with leaving it as is: “broad consensus of the Church”. I think history show that that is the actual answer for those first 7 Ecumenical Councils.

 

[ConstantineTG]

The answer to the question, by what criteria does the Orthodox authoritatively, objectively, and externally determine whether a given council was (or is) ecumenical, or not is:

“broad acceptance of the Church”?

The problem is you are looking for “authoritative” in a sense of a Pope. When all bishops agree to a council and all bishops agree to call a council as Ecumenical, then it is Ecumenical.

The same reason that there isn’t another Ecumenical Council since the First Millennium. There are many reasons why there were no further councils labeled as Ecumenical, but it goes down to the fact that not all bishops agree to call a certain council as Ecumenical. Not that there hasn’t been a council where all Orthodox bishops convened and all agreed to the outcome of the council. There has been at least 3, I believe. But the Orthodox haven’t been hasty to label a council as Ecumenical. We don’t need to call a council as Ecumenical for it to have weight. If the bishops agree to a council, then they are still bound by their agreement (they should be men of honor). There is nothing magical about a council dubbed as “ecumenical”. Bishops are bound by canons of councils they have agreed to. For example, the Canons of the Council of Trullo is still held by the Orthodox to this very day. Is that council ecumenical? No.

Can you please be a little more clear on what you mean by broad? As the first post questioned, are we talking about 90% of the Church? 80%? 60%? 51%? And who determines if its broad enough anyway?

Yes, by broad it means 100%.

 

[ConstantineTG]

The problem in threads like this is people are trying to look for equivalency between the Roman Catholic Church and the Eastern Orthodox Church. They are trying to figure out how the Eastern Orthodox Church has a Pope without actually having a Pope. The fact is, the two Churches are very, very different not only theologically, but ecclesiastically as well. While the Eastern Orthodox Church has preserved the First Millennium structure of the Church, the Roman Catholic Church has developed throughout the Second Millennium. And before Roman Catholics become defensive about it, let me point at that in the First Millennium there were no Cardinals or Roman Curia or Episcopal Conferences. And don’t think that development in Church governance is a bad thing, we didn’t have Metropolitans and Patriarchs in the first 200-300 years of the Church either. But the fact is, the Roman Catholic Church did change.

 

[Zekariya]

When all bishops agree to a council and all bishops agree to call a council as Ecumenical, then it is Ecumenical.

I guess the Council of Chalcedon is Ecumenical. Plenty rejected it.

 

[Genesis315]

the Orthodox doctrine as explained by ConstantineTG is fundamentally flawed and not historical in the least, as Zekariya alludes to.

Let’s say there’s some doctrinal dispute and I am confused as to the true answer. So I await the judgment of the Church as to which side of the dispute is professing the true doctrine. A Council gets together and gives a definitive answer, anathematizing all who disagree.

So, is this the authoritative answer? Not yet according to modern Orthodox doctrine, it must first be accepted by the whole Church. Who is the whole Church according to Orthodox doctrine? All orthodox believers. But who are the orthodox believers? The one’s that believe the true doctrine. But what is the true doctrine?

With that last question we’re back at square one. The Council was called to definitively settle the debate as to what the true doctrine is–but it must first be accepted by all those that already believe the true doctrine. But since I don’t know the true doctrine, I can’t tell if the people doing the accepting are the group I should look to. What about those that don’t accept it? How do I know they aren’t the ones who are right?

It seems historically this principle of requiring acceptance by the the whole Church was not adhered to. A lot of people didn’t accept the definitions of Ephesus and Chalcedon. Was their lack of acceptance taken into account? Nope, they were excommunicated forthwith. Obviously there will be universal acceptance when you kick out anyone who doesn’t accept it!

It seems this theory of needing acceptance after some period of time was only practiced to reject the reunion Councils of Lyons and Florence (where the Orthodox accepted papal primacy, the orthodoxy of our use of the Filioque, etc.) and certain things taught in subsquent pan-Orthodox Councils (Councils representing the whole Orthodox Church) that they later chose to reject for being too Latin because the approvingly teach indulgences, original sin, transubstantiation, etc.

The point is that there is no way to determine whose judgment is right–those that accept the Council or those that don’t?–other than for each individual to figure out every issue on his own. But if that is the case, then that defeats the whole purpose of the decision of the Council which was convened to judge the issue for all of us and threatened us with anathema if we didn’t receive its decision.

 

[Jacob50]

Yes, by broad it means 100%.

Ok, at least your the first one to give a number. But, wasn’t the Council of Chalcedon in 451 A.D. rejected by those whom we now call “Oriental Orthodox”? If yes, then how can we claim that 100% of the Church accepted such? If “broad” means 100%, then wouldn’t these oriental be part of the 100%?

 

[ConstantineTG]

I guess the Council of Chalcedon is Ecumenical. Plenty rejected it.

Can you tell me which Churches in communion with a Church that accepts Chalcedon rejects it?

 

[Zekariya]

Can you tell me which Churches in communion with a Church that accepts Chalcedon rejects it?

The Church of Alexandria rejected it. Part of Antioch rejected it. Also, remember the EO accepted Florence and later rejected it.

 

[ConstantineTG]

Ok, at least your the first one to give a number. But, wasn’t the Council of Chalcedon in 451 A.D. rejected by those whom we now call “Oriental Orthodox”? If yes, then how can we claim that 100% of the Church accepted such? If “broad” means 100%, then wouldn’t these oriental be part of the 100%?

The Oriental Orthodox are no longer part of the communion of Churches that have since been referred to as the “Chalcedonian Churches”. These include Roman Catholics and Eastern Orthodox. If you are in schism then your opinion doens’t matter. Remember the Old Catholics and Vatican I? Same case.

 

[Zekariya]

The Oriental Orthodox are no longer part of the communion of Churches that have since been referred to as the “Chalcedonian Churches”. These include Roman Catholics and Eastern Orthodox. If you are in schism then your opinion doens’t matter. Remember the Old Catholics and Vatican I? Same case.

You said:

When all bishops agree to a council and all bishops agree to call a council as Ecumenical, then it is Ecumenical.

I say that the Church of Alexandria rejected Chalcedon. Many bishops rejected Chalcedon.

 

[ConstantineTG]

The Church of Alexandria rejected it. Part of Antioch rejected it. Also, remember the EO accepted Florence and later rejected it.

Florence is not Ecumenical from the Orthodox perspective. With Alexandria and Antioch, you do know, being Melkite, that there is a mess with Patriarchs of Antioch. I mean, the Catholic Church herself has 3 or 4 Patriarchs of Antioch, nevermind the Orthodox ones.

So the Patriarch of Antioch in communion with Constantinople do accept Chalcedon. The Patriarch of Antioch in communion with the Oriental Orthodox do not accept Chalcedon.

And remember acceptance is not a one time thing. If the current bishop rejected a council and the next bishop accepted it and all their successors thereafter, then it is accepted. Also acceptance doesn’t have to happen at the time of the council. Some ecumenical councils were not declared Ecumenical until long after the council was done and over with. Usually a next council figures that out. But the status of ecumenical gives honor to the council that first figured it out, rather than the council when everybody actually agreed to it.

 

[ConstantineTG]

the Orthodox doctrine as explained by ConstantineTG is fundamentally flawed and not historical in the least, as Zekariya alludes to.

Let’s say there’s some doctrinal dispute and I am confused as to the true answer. So I await the judgment of the Church as to which side of the dispute is professing the true doctrine. A Council gets together and gives a definitive answer, anathematizing all who disagree.

So, is this the authoritative answer? Not yet according to modern Orthodox doctrine, it must first be accepted by the whole Church. Who is the whole Church according to Orthodox doctrine? All orthodox believers. But who are the orthodox believers? The one’s that believe the true doctrine. But what is the true doctrine?

With that last question we’re back at square one. The Council was called to definitively settle the debate as to what the true doctrine is–but it must first be accepted by all those that already believe the true doctrine. But since I don’t know the true doctrine, I can’t tell if the people doing the accepting are the group I should look to. What about those that don’t accept it? How do I know they aren’t the ones who are right?

It seems historically this principle of requiring acceptance by the the whole Church was not adhered to. A lot of people didn’t accept the definitions of Ephesus and Chalcedon. Was their lack of acceptance taken into account? Nope, they were excommunicated forthwith. Obviously there will be universal acceptance when you kick out anyone who doesn’t accept it!

It seems this theory of needing acceptance after some period of time was only practiced to reject the reunion Councils of Lyons and Florence (where the Orthodox accepted papal primacy, the orthodoxy of our use of the Filioque, etc.) and certain things taught in subsquent pan-Orthodox Councils (Councils representing the whole Orthodox Church) that they later chose to reject for being too Latin because the approvingly teach indulgences, original sin, transubstantiation, etc.

The point is that there is no way to determine whose judgment is right–those that accept the Council or those that don’t?–other than for each individual to figure out every issue on his own. But if that is the case, then that defeats the whole purpose of the decision of the Council which was convened to judge the issue for all of us and threatened us with anathema if we didn’t receive its decision.

As hard for you to understand, that is how it worked and it worked. Books have been written to explain this, so I cannot give the explanation full justice on a forum post. You would just have to open your mind on the matter and research a bit more at least to understand the Orthodox point of view.

 

[Zekariya]

Florence is not Ecumenical from the Orthodox perspective. With Alexandria and Antioch, you do know, being Melkite, that there is a mess with Patriarchs of Antioch. I mean, the Catholic Church herself has 3 or 4 Patriarchs of Antioch, nevermind the Orthodox ones.

So the Patriarch of Antioch in communion with Constantinople do accept Chalcedon. The Patriarch of Antioch in communion with the Oriental Orthodox do not accept Chalcedon.

And remember acceptance is not a one time thing. If the current bishop rejected a council and the next bishop accepted it and all their successors thereafter, then it is accepted. Also acceptance doesn’t have to happen at the time of the council. Some ecumenical councils were not declared Ecumenical until long after the council was done and over with. Usually a next council figures that out. But the status of ecumenical gives honor to the council that first figured it out, rather than the council when everybody actually agreed to it.

Then you recant this statement below?

When all bishops agree to a council and all bishops agree to call a council as Ecumenical, then it is Ecumenical.

The Church of Alexandria disagreed with that council and never accepted it. Pope Dioscrorus rejected it.

 

[Jacob50]

The Oriental Orthodox are no longer part of the communion of Churches that have since been referred to as the “Chalcedonian Churches”. These include Roman Catholics and Eastern Orthodox. If you are in schism then your opinion doens’t matter. Remember the Old Catholics and Vatican I? Same case.

I understand that the opinions of schismatics don’t matter anymore. But these people were not in schism before the Council was made. Thus they were of that 100%, which later rejected the council. What comes first, is their rejection. What comes second, is their “ceasing to be” of the 100%, precisely by their rejection.

 

[ConstantineTG]

Then you recant this statement below?

What is there to recant? If a bishop is no longer in communion with you, why does his opinion matter? Do Roman Catholics ask Anglicans what they think about on matters of doctrine and dogma?

The Church of Alexandria disagreed with that council and never accepted it. Pope Dioscrorus rejected it.

As I mentioned earlier, this isn’t an elections where once a bishop cast their vote it can never be overturned by the same bishop, or by a successor. The fact that a later Alexandrian Patriarch did accept Chalcedon, while there is a parallel Patriarch that did not. That is why there is an EO and an OO Patriarch for both Alexandria and Antioch.

 

[ConstantineTG]

I understand that the opinions of schismatics don’t matter anymore. But these people were not in schism before the Council was made. Thus they were of that 100%, which later rejected the council. What comes first, is their rejection. What comes second, is their “ceasing to be” of the 100%, precisely by their rejection.

You’re setting up requirements that the Fathers themselves never set up. There was no requirement that the bishops who attended the council be the ones to accept or reject them to make it ecumenical. The only requirement is that all bishops accept a council and recognize it as ecumeinical. If this happens 500 years later when all bishops from the original council has long since been dead, then it still works. The only requirement is that at a certain point in time, all Orthodox who are alive at that time and are in communion with one another do universally accept that council they wish to deem as ecumenical.

Arius never accepted the First Ecumenical Council either.

 

[Zekariya]

What is there to recant? If a bishop is no longer in communion with you, why does his opinion matter? Do Roman Catholics ask Anglicans what they think about on matters of doctrine and dogma?

As I mentioned earlier, this isn’t an elections where once a bishop cast their vote it can never be overturned by the same bishop, or by a successor. The fact that a later Alexandrian Patriarch did accept Chalcedon, while there is a parallel Patriarch that did not. That is why there is an EO and an OO Patriarch for both Alexandria and Antioch.

I am sorry. I must be missing something. You said: “When all bishops agree to a council and all bishops agree to call a council as Ecumenical, then it is Ecumenical.” [emphasis mine] Does this not contradict what you have now said? or do you believe that both statements are reconcilable? I’m a little confused.

 

[Genesis315]

As hard for you to understand, that is how it worked and it worked. Books have been written to explain this, so I cannot give the explanation full justice on a forum post. You would just have to open your mind on the matter and research a bit more at least to understand the Orthodox point of view.

But that’s not how it worked. The decisions of the Councils were not submitted to all the faithful with a note that said, “hey guys, did we get this right or not?” They sent out the decrees saying “believe this or you’re out.” Not everyone did accept these decisions, and the bishops didn’t say, “oh well, I guess our Council isn’t binding”–quite the opposite happened–they kicked out those that disagreed.

Again, this seems like a retroactively applied new idea to wiggle out of the renuion Councils and the supposedly Latin-tainted pan-Orthodox Councils that became embarrassing during the Orthodox Church’s intense anti-Latin period of the 19th and early 20th centuries (known as their “exodus from Western captivity”).

 

[Genesis315]

I am sorry. I must be missing something. You said: “When all bishops agree to a council and all bishops agree to call a council as Ecumenical, then it is Ecumenical.” [emphasis mine] Does this not contradict what you have now said? or do you believe that both statements are reconcilable? I’m a little confused.

It’s a meaningless tautology. When all who agree on the right belief agree on the right belief, then you know it is the right belief.

 

[ConstantineTG]

I am sorry. I must be missing something. You said: “When all bishops agree to a council and all bishops agree to call a council as Ecumenical, then it is Ecumenical.” [emphasis mine] Does this not contradict what you have now said? or do you believe that both statements are reconcilable? I’m a little confused.

I have said time and again, bishops who are still within the Church (in communion) are the ones that matter. It does not have to be the same bishops who attended the council. It does not have to be the day the council ended or any set amount of time since then. As long as a council is accepted by all canonical bishops at a given date and time and moving forward, then it is ecumenical.

My statements do reconcile. I think you have some perceived notions that are not consistent with how the Fathers themselves conducted the councils.