What is the difference between catholism and eastern orthodoxy?

[James_Trevor]

Obviously reforms were needed in the western church. Popes were nominated by emperors of Byzantium for a few centuries, then western kings and emperors. Even after the Gregorian Reformation the interference of monarchs from Europe did not cease, and they had a lot of influence over the selection of Popes

I feel I should inject that the same can be said of the Orthodox Church at the time.

Obviously reforms were needed in the eastern church. Patriarchs were nominated by emperors of Byzantium for a few centuries, then eastern kings and caliphs. Even after the fall of Constantinople the interference of kings from now Turkey did not cease, and they had a lot of influence over the selection of Patriarchs.

See what I did there?

I am not trying to sling mud or initiate a fight, but both Apostolic churches have had their fair share of corruption. I will say it lasted longer in Rome (as far as I know).

 

[dvdjs]

ecumenical councils alone are given infallibility when it comes to doctrinal definitions.

Just wanted to check on that: On previous threads here, EO’s have made the claim that the declarations of ecumenical councils can be reformed by subsequent ecumenical councils. As such, the conciliar definitions could not be considered infallible. Do you have some definitive treatment of the infallibility of ecumenical councils in the EO church?

 

[Hesychios]

I feel I should inject that the same can be said of the Orthodox Church at the time.

Yes, that is correct.

The fact that political power came to dominate the Christian church was a problem.

 

[GaryTaylor]

Right which is the reason I mentioned the College of Cardinals earlier. Through it we can see it evolve right to JP-II and the election of Benedict.

When we think “immediate” its more realistic that one Pope, be it the next or not will make it his priority to re-establish the unity. In many ways Benedict is still finishing what he and JP-II started together.

I believe its correct to think of Benedict as the right man for the task, as a Prof. he taught a majority Orthodox theology class. And has a great respect for Orthodoxy. We also must consider he is basically the same age as JP-II, I believe its 2-years difference.

So when Benedict stated, if Gods willing and time permits? He was speaking literally about his age and the difficulty involved in this process. The churchs have come a long way and have a way to go.

I suppose we would all like instant gratification, but we are a drop of rain in the ocean of time.

Nonetheless these two churchs are connected in history to the early church.

God Bless, Gary

 

[Cavaradossi]

Just wanted to check on that: On previous threads here, EO’s have made the claim that the declarations of ecumenical councils can be reformed by subsequent ecumenical councils. As such, the conciliar definitions could not be considered infallible. Do you have some definitive treatment of the infallibility of ecumenical councils in the EO church?

It depends on the nature of the declaration. Dogmatic declarations of ecumenical councils are widely regarded as being infallible. No Eastern Orthodox, for example, would question the infallibility of Niceno-Constantinopolitan Creed or the Chalcedonian Definition. These are considered to be infallible. Things like canons, since they are updated from time to time are not usually regarded as being infallible and unchangeable, so they can be reformed by subsequent ecumenical councils.

The only event which I can think of where an ecumenical council was later repudiated by another ecumenical council was the Second Council of Ephesus, which was later rejected at the Council of Chalcedon. The reason why it was possible to reject the Second Council of Ephesus (also known as “the Robber Council”) was because, upon examining the acts of the council, it was declared that the Second Council of Ephesus was conducted improperly and therefore was not ecumenical. I don’t think any other case exists of the dogmatic decisions of an ecumenical council being repudiated by a later one.

 

[dvdjs]

It depends on the nature of the declaration. Dogmatic declarations of ecumenical councils are widely regarded as being infallible. No Eastern Orthodox, for example, would question the infallibility of Niceno-Constantinopolitan Creed or the Chalcedonian Definition. These are considered to be infallible. Things like canons, since they are updated from time to time are not usually regarded as being infallible and unchangeable, so they can be reformed by subsequent ecumenical councils.

The only event which I can think of where an ecumenical council was later repudiated by another ecumenical council was the Second Council of Ephesus, which was later rejected at the Council of Chalcedon. The reason why it was possible to reject the Second Council of Ephesus (also known as “the Robber Council”) was because, upon examining the acts of the council, it was declared that the Second Council of Ephesus was conducted improperly and therefore was not ecumenical. I don’t think any other case exists of the dogmatic decisions of an ecumenical council being repudiated by a later one.

Thanks. You make a very interesting point. The irreformable nature of a teaching depends on both its content and proper process by which it is promulgated. Sounds familiar.