S
Seraphim73
Guest
There have been tons of councils.
What is the difference between Catholics and greek orthodox?
- Status
J
Jon_Mallory
Guest
Ah, another episode of the Orthodox v. Catholic show 
R
Randy_Carson
Guest
Were any of the councils called by the Eastern Orthodox bishops Ecumenical Councils?
Who has the authority to call an Ecumenical Council?
C
Cavaradossi
Guest
It is interesting that you do not mention St. Maximos’ later attitude towards Rome when the see begrudgingly entered into union with the monothelites. As the historian Steven Runcman points out, appealing to the supremacy of Rome was more like a rhetorical trope or a game used by ecclesiastics in the East to cause embarrassment to some opposing party, that nevertheless had little force in terms of authority. This is why you find plenty of Eastern ecclesiastics and saints whose opinions of Rome often changed on a dime so to speak.
C
Cavaradossi
Guest
Who called all of the ecumenical councils in the first millennium?
S
Seraphim73
Guest
Randy we covered this ad nauseam a while back and I’m not going to get into it again. No one has the authority to call a council of the heads of the Churches because no one person has authority over these bishops. A council is convened by consensus.
R
Randy_Carson
Guest
I have no clue.
R
Randy_Carson
Guest
Do you think it would be possible for the five “heads of the Churches” to call an Ecumenical Council by consensus?
If so, who would preside? And how was this handled in the past?
What would happen if the Patriarch of the West approved or disapproved of the final decisions of the council and one or more of the Eastern Patriarchs took the opposite position?
Would it thereby fail to be an Ecumenical Council simply because the “whole church” did not accept it?
But then what does that say about the council(s) that the Oriental Orthodox (who were still part of the “whole Church” at the time) rejected? We both consider some councils to be ecumenical despite the fact that part of the Church (the OO) did not accept them.
So, would it be possible for a council called and attended by representatives of all five patriarchs to be accepted as Ecumenical by three or four of the five but not all five?
S
Seraphim73
Guest
Well there are 14 authocephalous Churches, not five. And yes it is possible. It’s happened many times and it’s happening next year.
It would be presided over by the highest ranking bishop.
As I said Randy, you already have a thread where we went over these questions over and over and over. I’m not going to get into again.
R
Randy_Carson
Guest
Wise decision.
I
Isaiah45_9
Guest
The First Council of Nicaea, Emperor Constantine
First Council of Constantinople, Emperors Gratian and Theodosius I
The Council of Ephesus, Emperor Theodosius II
The Council of Chalcedon, Emperor Marcian
The Second Council of Constantinople, Emperor Justinian
The Third Council of Constantinople, Emperor Constantine IV
The Second Council of Nicaea, Emperor Constantine VI and Empress Irene
R
Randy_Carson
Guest
Thank you!
What is your opinion about who has the authority to call an Ecumenical Council today?
I
Isaiah45_9
Guest
What do you mean by Ecumenical?Thank you!
What is your opinion about who has the authority to call an Ecumenical Council today?
And by today, do you mean with the current state of affairs?
R
Randy_Carson
Guest
An ecumenical council is a conference of ecclesiastical dignitaries and theological experts convened to discuss and settle matters of Church doctrine and practice in which those entitled to vote are convoked from the whole world (oikoumene) and which secures the approbation of the whole Church.
Yes.
Who has the authority to call for an Ecumenical council today?
S
SyroMalankara
Guest
Randy,
The Ecumenical Patriarch has the authority to request all the Eastern Orthodox bishops gather a pan-Orthodox Synod. If the majority accept, or a significant number of EO Churches send delegates, the meeting is convened and decisions made. The decisions are then accepted in whole or in part back home when these various delegates return. Whether or not the Synod is deemed truly “Ecumenical” is only determined after the fact and only after it’s teachings have been practiced – or rejected.
It’s the reverse of what you probably conceive as one of the Latin mindset, where a modern Council is convened by the Bishop of Rome with the intention of it being “Ecumenical”, it’s teachings or decisions already predetermined to be accepted, and the teachings understood to be required Catholic teaching.
In practice, however, both require time to actually filter to the local Churches and the laity - usually about 100 years. For example, it is only in the last decade that much of Vatican2 is actually starting to be implemented as VC2 actually stated. Previously, a lot of what passed for the “spirit of VC2” was whatever the bishop or parish priest felt like it meant, without much thought for the actual words of the teachings of V2. Clarifications like Pope Benedict’s Summorum Pontificum emphasize that V2 never outlawed EF Mass, ad orientum worship, nor implemented EMHCs and hiding the tabernacle in the closet.
I’m sure similar ideas will need to be filtered after the called pan-Orthodox Synod, and time will tell of it’s Ecumenicity.
The Ecumenical Patriarch has the authority to request all the Eastern Orthodox bishops gather a pan-Orthodox Synod. If the majority accept, or a significant number of EO Churches send delegates, the meeting is convened and decisions made. The decisions are then accepted in whole or in part back home when these various delegates return. Whether or not the Synod is deemed truly “Ecumenical” is only determined after the fact and only after it’s teachings have been practiced – or rejected.
It’s the reverse of what you probably conceive as one of the Latin mindset, where a modern Council is convened by the Bishop of Rome with the intention of it being “Ecumenical”, it’s teachings or decisions already predetermined to be accepted, and the teachings understood to be required Catholic teaching.
In practice, however, both require time to actually filter to the local Churches and the laity - usually about 100 years. For example, it is only in the last decade that much of Vatican2 is actually starting to be implemented as VC2 actually stated. Previously, a lot of what passed for the “spirit of VC2” was whatever the bishop or parish priest felt like it meant, without much thought for the actual words of the teachings of V2. Clarifications like Pope Benedict’s Summorum Pontificum emphasize that V2 never outlawed EF Mass, ad orientum worship, nor implemented EMHCs and hiding the tabernacle in the closet.
I’m sure similar ideas will need to be filtered after the called pan-Orthodox Synod, and time will tell of it’s Ecumenicity.
I
Isaiah45_9
Guest
Catholic Church: The Pope
Orthodox Church: The Patriarchates.
Non Catholic/Non Orthodox: My head hurts
A
Abu
Guest
1256. Did the Patriarchs of the Greek Orthodox Church at any stage after the death of Christ recognize the Pope as supreme and infallible head of the Church?
We cannot speak of the “Patriarchs of the Greek Orthodox Church” prior to the Greek Schism commenced by Photius in 867 A.D. Until then there were simply Patriarchs of Constantinople, presiding there and subject to the Pope. Dr. Orchard, when a Congregationalist, wrote, “An examination of the circumstances of the Great Schism shows that the Eastern Church did then repudiate a supremacy which it had previously been in the habit of conceding to the Roman Patriarchate.” The First Council of Constantinople in 381, which only Eastern Bishops attended, demanded that the Bishop of Constantinople should rank next after the Bishop of Rome, and before the Bishops of Alexandria and Antioch. The Council of Chalcedon in 451, attended by the Eastern Bishops, ended its discussion with the unanimous cry, “Peter has spoken by Leo,” when the Pope’s decision was given. A century and a half later Pope Gregory I. could still write, “Who doubts that the Church of Constantinople is subject to the Apostolic See?” No one then doubted it; and no one disputed it until Photius came along in 867 to plunge the East into schism. The Patriarch of Constantinople, and all the Eastern Bishops signed the formula of Hormisdas, who was Pope from 514 to 523. That formula contained these words, “We follow the Apostolic See in everything and teach all its laws. I hope to be in that one Communion taught by the Apostolic See in which is the whole, real, and perfect solidity of the Christian religion.” Dean Milman writes, “Before the end of the third century the lineal descent of Rome’s Bishops from St. Peter was unhesitatingly claimed and obsequiously admitted by the Christian world.”
radioreplies.info/radio-replies-vol-2.php?t=139&n=1268
787. Apart from their rejection of Papal Infallibility, has purity of doctrine from the Catholic point of view been maintained by the Eastern Orthodox Churches?
Not entirely. **Besides denying Papal Infallibility they would, of course, deny Papal Supremacy. **They grant that the Pope has a primacy of honour, but not that he has supreme jurisdiction over the whole Church. They deny, also, the dogma of the Immaculate Conception of the Blessed Virgin Mary as regards her exemption from original sin, although holding that she was ever personally sinless. In cases even of a valid marriage they permit divorce and remarriage. Other differences could be regarded as belonging to the area of non-essentials. Meantime, what the Catholic Church does recognise in the Eastern Orthodox Churches is the validity of their priestly ordinations; the legitimacy of their Eastern liturgical rites which are much the same as those in Eastern Rite Catholic Churches; and their general affinity of outlook with the Catholic Church in matters of faith and morals. Needless to say, they are much nearer to the Catholic Church than any of the forms of Western Protestantism. [My emphasis].
radioreplies.info/radio-replies-vol-5.php?t=15&n=787
We cannot speak of the “Patriarchs of the Greek Orthodox Church” prior to the Greek Schism commenced by Photius in 867 A.D. Until then there were simply Patriarchs of Constantinople, presiding there and subject to the Pope. Dr. Orchard, when a Congregationalist, wrote, “An examination of the circumstances of the Great Schism shows that the Eastern Church did then repudiate a supremacy which it had previously been in the habit of conceding to the Roman Patriarchate.” The First Council of Constantinople in 381, which only Eastern Bishops attended, demanded that the Bishop of Constantinople should rank next after the Bishop of Rome, and before the Bishops of Alexandria and Antioch. The Council of Chalcedon in 451, attended by the Eastern Bishops, ended its discussion with the unanimous cry, “Peter has spoken by Leo,” when the Pope’s decision was given. A century and a half later Pope Gregory I. could still write, “Who doubts that the Church of Constantinople is subject to the Apostolic See?” No one then doubted it; and no one disputed it until Photius came along in 867 to plunge the East into schism. The Patriarch of Constantinople, and all the Eastern Bishops signed the formula of Hormisdas, who was Pope from 514 to 523. That formula contained these words, “We follow the Apostolic See in everything and teach all its laws. I hope to be in that one Communion taught by the Apostolic See in which is the whole, real, and perfect solidity of the Christian religion.” Dean Milman writes, “Before the end of the third century the lineal descent of Rome’s Bishops from St. Peter was unhesitatingly claimed and obsequiously admitted by the Christian world.”
radioreplies.info/radio-replies-vol-2.php?t=139&n=1268
787. Apart from their rejection of Papal Infallibility, has purity of doctrine from the Catholic point of view been maintained by the Eastern Orthodox Churches?
Not entirely. **Besides denying Papal Infallibility they would, of course, deny Papal Supremacy. **They grant that the Pope has a primacy of honour, but not that he has supreme jurisdiction over the whole Church. They deny, also, the dogma of the Immaculate Conception of the Blessed Virgin Mary as regards her exemption from original sin, although holding that she was ever personally sinless. In cases even of a valid marriage they permit divorce and remarriage. Other differences could be regarded as belonging to the area of non-essentials. Meantime, what the Catholic Church does recognise in the Eastern Orthodox Churches is the validity of their priestly ordinations; the legitimacy of their Eastern liturgical rites which are much the same as those in Eastern Rite Catholic Churches; and their general affinity of outlook with the Catholic Church in matters of faith and morals. Needless to say, they are much nearer to the Catholic Church than any of the forms of Western Protestantism. [My emphasis].
radioreplies.info/radio-replies-vol-5.php?t=15&n=787
S
SyroMalankara
Guest
P
prodromos
Guest
They have called many councils. It is for the Church to declare later whether or not any of them should be termed “ecumenical”
- Status