OrthodoxChristianity.net
October 21, 2014, 10:35:21 AM *
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
News: Reminder: No political discussions in the public fora.  If you do not have access to the private Politics Forum, please send a PM to Fr. George.
 
   Home   Help Calendar Contact Treasury Tags Login Register  
Pages: 1   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic: Eighth Ecumenical Council (?)  (Read 4598 times) Average Rating: 0
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
stanley123
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Roman Catholic
Posts: 3,809


« on: September 29, 2009, 02:48:55 PM »

Concerning the eighth Ecumenical Council  held at Constantinople in 879-880: According to the Orthodox wikipedia:
‘This council was originally accepted and fully endorsed by the papacy in Rome (whose legates were present at the behest of Pope John VIII), but later repudiated by Rome in the 11th century, retroactively regarding the robber council of 869-870 to be ecumenical. The council of 879-880 affirmed the restoration of St. Photius the Great to his see and anathematized any who altered the Nicene-Constantinopolitan Creed, thus condemning the Filioque.”
But it goes on to say that this council is not regarded as ecumenical by all Orthodox and in the discussion it says that “The only Orthodox support for Eight Councils comes from the 1848 reply of some of the Orthodox Patriarchs to Pope Pius IX's letter. Now that one example, 1000 years after the Council, does not count for too much….”
From the Orthodox standpoint, then, what is the standing of this Council? 
Logged
AlexanderOfBergamo
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Traditionalist Christian
Jurisdiction: The Original First Millennium Church
Posts: 706


« Reply #1 on: September 29, 2009, 03:02:01 PM »

The Orthodox standpoint is that there's no official standpoint, unfortunately.
All Orthodox will acknowledge that the contents of this synod were entirely Orthodox, rejecting Filioque and Papal Supremacy at the same time. Unfortunately, this Council is only rarely mantioned as ecumenical due to the attempts of ecumenism to keep in contact with Rome... if we were to define the 8th EC as official, we'd have a RIVAL council the RC 8th EC, and we'd open a breach in ecumenical dialogue. Sincerely, I think we should call it for what it is... we can't compromise our faith, and repeating that Constantinople V is essential for reunion is necessary to have a "true" restoration of communion, a thing RCs would never accept, I guess.

In Christ,   Alex
Logged

"Also in the Catholic Church itself we take great care that we hold that which has been believed everywhere, always, by all. For that is truly and properly Catholic" (St. Vincent of Lérins, "The Commonitory")
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Warned
Hypatos
*****************
Online Online

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,960



« Reply #2 on: September 29, 2009, 04:37:56 PM »

Concerning the eighth Ecumenical Council  held at Constantinople in 879-880: According to the Orthodox wikipedia:
‘This council was originally accepted and fully endorsed by the papacy in Rome (whose legates were present at the behest of Pope John VIII), but later repudiated by Rome in the 11th century, retroactively regarding the robber council of 869-870 to be ecumenical. The council of 879-880 affirmed the restoration of St. Photius the Great to his see and anathematized any who altered the Nicene-Constantinopolitan Creed, thus condemning the Filioque.”
But it goes on to say that this council is not regarded as ecumenical by all Orthodox and in the discussion it says that “The only Orthodox support for Eight Councils comes from the 1848 reply of some of the Orthodox Patriarchs to Pope Pius IX's letter. Now that one example, 1000 years after the Council, does not count for too much….”
From the Orthodox standpoint, then, what is the standing of this Council? 


That we are talking today about SAINT Photios and ANATHEMATIZING the filioque and RESISTING the Vatican exerting jurisdiciton over Constantinople (or any Patriarchate) pretty much sums it up. If it is not Ecumenical, it is Pan Orthodox.

The reference in 1848 isn't the only one:
http://www.geocities.com/trvalentine/orthodox/dragas_eighth.html
http://www.geocities.com/trvalentine/orthodox/8-9synods.html
http://www.holytrinitymission.org/books/english/councils_local_rudder.htm#_Toc72635076
Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
Fr. George
formerly "Cleveland"
Administrator
Stratopedarches
*******
Online Online

Faith: Orthodox (Catholic) Christian
Jurisdiction: GOA - Metropolis of Pittsburgh
Posts: 20,091


May the Lord bless you and keep you always!


« Reply #3 on: September 29, 2009, 04:53:16 PM »

The Orthodox standpoint is that there's no official standpoint, unfortunately.
All Orthodox will acknowledge that the contents of this synod were entirely Orthodox, rejecting Filioque and Papal Supremacy at the same time. Unfortunately, this Council is only rarely mantioned as ecumenical due to the attempts of ecumenism to keep in contact with Rome... if we were to define the 8th EC as official, we'd have a RIVAL council the RC 8th EC, and we'd open a breach in ecumenical dialogue. Sincerely, I think we should call it for what it is... we can't compromise our faith, and repeating that Constantinople V is essential for reunion is necessary to have a "true" restoration of communion, a thing RCs would never accept, I guess.

I don't think the dropping of the 8th (& 9th) is because of Ecumenical efforts; the RCs have 20+ (21?) Ecumenical Councils, including Vatican I & II.  I think it's just because we haven't needed to define the council(s) as Ecumenical - there haven't been subsequent challenges, subsequent major synods, etc.
Logged

"The man who doesn't read good books has no advantage over the one who can't read them." Mark Twain
---------------------
Ordained on 17 & 18-Oct 2009. Please forgive me if earlier posts are poorly worded or incorrect in any way.
witega
Is it enough now, to tell you you matter?
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Diocese of the South
Posts: 1,614


« Reply #4 on: September 29, 2009, 05:02:37 PM »

Concerning the eighth Ecumenical Council  held at Constantinople in 879-880: According to the Orthodox wikipedia:
‘This council was originally accepted and fully endorsed by the papacy in Rome (whose legates were present at the behest of Pope John VIII), but later repudiated by Rome in the 11th century, retroactively regarding the robber council of 869-870 to be ecumenical. The council of 879-880 affirmed the restoration of St. Photius the Great to his see and anathematized any who altered the Nicene-Constantinopolitan Creed, thus condemning the Filioque.”
But it goes on to say that this council is not regarded as ecumenical by all Orthodox and in the discussion it says that “The only Orthodox support for Eight Councils comes from the 1848 reply of some of the Orthodox Patriarchs to Pope Pius IX's letter. Now that one example, 1000 years after the Council, does not count for too much….”
From the Orthodox standpoint, then, what is the standing of this Council? 


First off, the wiki article is just wrong in stating that 1848 encyclical is the 'only' Orthodox support. (Not to mention, the 1848 encyclical was a conciliar document signed by *all* the Patriarchs in existence at the time along with their synods not some--the entry seems to represent a Western slant rather than any actual Orthodox position). See http://www.orthodox.ws/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=22&Itemid=28 (a Roman Catholic scholar) and http://www.geocities.com/trvalentine/orthodox/dragas_eighth.html (professor at Holy Cross) for multiple examples of pre-19th century Orthodox references to the 879 Council of Constantinople as 'the 8th Ecumenical Council'.

As Alexander says, in this century people have tended to shy away from arguing about whether it was or was not the '8th Ecumenical Council' because it would create another point of contention in ecumenical discussions, and it doesn't really matter. If the 879 Council of Constaninople was not an 'Ecumenical Council' then it's the next thing to it:

What is generally agreed:
1) It was a general council which included the 4 Eastern Patriarchs, legates of the Pope, and 380 other bishops (a broader representation than, for example, Constantinople I).
2) It was accepted by the whole Church at the time and was only rejected by the West after they had gone into schism (making it parallel to Chalcedon).
3) As a general council it is of higher authority than any local council and no local council has authority to revoke or revise it.
4) It's doctrinal decisions reflect the teaching of the Orthodox Church. (The differerence between define and reflect being the difference between whether it is or is not an Ecumencial Council)
Logged

Ariel Starling - New album

For it were better to suffer everything, rather than divide the Church of God. Even martyrdom for the sake of preventing division would not be less glorious than for refusing to worship idols. - St. Dionysius the Great
Fr. George
formerly "Cleveland"
Administrator
Stratopedarches
*******
Online Online

Faith: Orthodox (Catholic) Christian
Jurisdiction: GOA - Metropolis of Pittsburgh
Posts: 20,091


May the Lord bless you and keep you always!


« Reply #5 on: September 29, 2009, 05:05:54 PM »

(The differerence between define and reflect being the difference between whether it is or is not an Ecumencial Council)

I don't know if I buy this argument on the subject; I've seen no material supporting this POV, so I'm a bit skeptical.
Logged

"The man who doesn't read good books has no advantage over the one who can't read them." Mark Twain
---------------------
Ordained on 17 & 18-Oct 2009. Please forgive me if earlier posts are poorly worded or incorrect in any way.
Father H
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian--God's One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: UOCofUSA-Ecumenical Patriarchate
Posts: 2,611



« Reply #6 on: September 30, 2009, 03:43:00 PM »

It is interesting that the 1848 reply also speaks of the first 7 Ecumenical Councils as the "7 ecumenical councils" and equate them with the 7 pillars of wisdom of Scripture.  I can't recall where I read it but the argument that, based on this, although the 8th and 9th are of Ecumenical status, that 1-7 have a primacy in that many of the Fathers saw in them the "seven pillars of wisdom" reported in Scripture.   Similar argument to the mysteries beyond the 1st 7--that the 7 great evangelical mysteries have a primacy.   But also, we speak of "the 12 apostles."   This does not detract from the fact that the 70 were also "apostles among the 70."   The 12 simply have a primacy.   
« Last Edit: September 30, 2009, 03:44:03 PM by FatherHLL » Logged
Irish Hermit
Kibernetski Kaludjer
Warned
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Posts: 10,991


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us


« Reply #7 on: September 30, 2009, 05:21:16 PM »

The only Orthodox support for Eight Councils comes from the 1848 reply of
some of the Orthodox Patriarchs to Pope Pius IX's letter.

In other words there is a 1000 year gap when the idea of 8 or
even 9 Councils seems to have been unknown in the Church.

Now that one example from 1848 does not count for too much - and it is even less
substantial when one reads the letter and see that there is internal
confusion. The letter contains EIGHT references to SEVEN Ecumenical Councils
and TWO references to EIGHT Councils.

This is quite a discrepancy in the letter and those who support Eight Councils
need to account for it.  They also need to account for not the slightest
mention of a Ninth Council.

Here are all the references compiled from the 1848 Encyclical:

SEVEN: "For being the miserable cogitations and devices of miserable men,
both one and the other, struck with the thunderbolt of the anathema of the
seven Ecumenical Councils, shall vanish away, though they may last a
thousand years;"

SEVEN: "The new doctrine, that "the Holy Ghost proceedeth from the Father
and the Son," is contrary to the memorable declaration of our LORD,
emphatically made respecting it: which proceedeth from the Father (John xv.
26), and contrary to the universal Confession of the Catholic Church as
witnessed by the seven Ecumenical Councils.."

SEVEN: "It reproaches the Fathers of the third, fourth, fifth, sixth, and
seventh Ecumenical Councils,

EIGHT: "It was subjected to anathema, as a novelty and augmentation of the
Creed, by the eighth Ecumenical Council, congregated at Constantinople for
the pacification of the Eastern and Western Churches."

EIGHT: "by his letter to the holy Photius at the eighth Ecumenical
Council.."

SEVEN: "But if his Holiness had sent us statements concordant and in unison
with the seven holy Ecumenical Councils.."

SEVEN: "..and by the seven Ecumenical Councils, and in obedience to the
Truth."

SEVEN: "This same anathema the Seven Ecumenical Councils and the whole choir
of God-serving fathers pronounced..."

SEVEN: "..taught in the Gospel from the mouth of our LORD, witnessed by the
holy Apostles, by the seven sacred Ecumenical Councils, preached throughout
the world

SEVEN: "The august Ecumenical Councils, those seven pillars of the house of
Wisdom, were organized in it and among us."


Logged
Justin Kissel
Formerly Asteriktos
Protospatharios
****************
Offline Offline

Posts: 30,094


Goodbye for now, my friend


« Reply #8 on: October 29, 2009, 02:14:50 AM »

Quote
The only Orthodox support for Eight Councils comes from the 1848 reply of some of the Orthodox Patriarchs to Pope Pius IX's letter.

I suppose it depends on where you are trying to draw support from. Certain Greek theologians have weighed in and said that they would accept and 8th and 9th Ecumenical Council. For example, Met. Hierotheos, quoting Athanasius Gievtits (Christ Beginning and End, p. 195), says:

Quote
The hesychastic conflict, as it was called, ended with the Councils which took place in Constantinople in 1341, 1346 and 1351. The last Council, which "justified" Palamas, proponent of the hesychastic life, is considered to be Ecumenical: "We think that the Council of Constantinople in the time of Saint Gregory Palamas in 1351, judging at least on the basis of its great theological work, can be and deserves to be counted among the Ecumenical Councils of the Orthodox Church, to which it is in no way inferior as to the soteriological significance of its theology. This Council constitutes the proof of the continuing conciliarity of the Orthodox Church and of the living experience and theology concerning salvation in Christ" - Met. Hierotheos, Orthodox Psychotherapy: The Science of the Fathers, (Birth of the Theotokos Monastery, 1994), pp. 326-327

See Synodikon of Orthodoxy from the book The Mind of the Orthodox Church by Met. Hierotheos for more from him on the idea. Here are a few other quotes, by John S. Romanides:

Quote
When it became clear that the Franks were not going to retreat from these politico-doctrinal policies, the Romans [ie. Orthodox] accepted the challenge and condemned both the Filioque and the Frankish double position on icons at the Eighth Ecumenical Synod of 879 in Constantinople-New Rome.  From the Roman [ie. Orthodox] viewpoint, however, the Roman tradition of the Fathers was not only not terminated in the eighth century, but continued a vigorous existence in free Romania in the East, as well as within Arab-occupied areas. Present research is now leading to the conclusion that the Roman Patristic period extended right in tot he period of Ottoman rule, after the fall of Constantinople New Rome. This means that the Eighth Ecumenical Synod (879), under Photios, the so-called Palamite Synods of the fourteenth century, and the Synods of the Roman Patriarchate during the Ottoman period, are all a continuation and an integral part of the history of Patristic theology. It is also a continuation of the Roman Christian tradition, minus the Patriarchate of Old Rome, which, since 1009 after having been captured, ceased to be Roman and became a Frankish institution." - John S. Romanides, Franks, Romans, Feudalism and Doctrine, Part 3

Quote
"All who have reached glorification testify to the fact that "it is impossible to express God and even more impossible to conceive Him" because they know by their experience that there is no similarity whatsoever between the created and the uncreated. God is "unmoved mover" and "moved" and "neither one. nor oneness nor unity,. nor divinity... nor sonship, nor fatherhood, etc." in the experience of glorification. The Bible and dogmas are guides to and abolished during glorification. They are not ends in themselves and have nothing to do with metaphysics, either with analogia entis or with analogia fidei. This means that words and concepts which do not contradict the experience of glorification and which lead to purification and illumination of the heart and glorification are Orthodox. Words and concepts which contradict glorification and lead away from cure and perfection in Christ are heretical. This is the key to the decisions of all Seven Roman Ecumenical Councils as well as that of the Eighth of 879 and especially of the Ninth of 1341." - John S. Romanides, Church Synods and Civilization
« Last Edit: October 29, 2009, 02:19:06 AM by Asteriktos » Logged

Paradosis ≠ Asteriktos ≠ Justin
Irish Hermit
Kibernetski Kaludjer
Warned
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Posts: 10,991


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us


« Reply #9 on: October 19, 2010, 07:31:08 AM »

Quote
The only Orthodox support for Eight Councils comes from the 1848 reply of some of the Orthodox Patriarchs to Pope Pius IX's letter.

I suppose it depends on where you are trying to draw support from. Certain Greek theologians have weighed in and said that they would accept and 8th and 9th Ecumenical Council. For example, Met. Hierotheos, quoting Athanasius Gievtits (Christ Beginning and End, p. 195), says:

Quote
The hesychastic conflict, as it was called, ended with the Councils which took place in Constantinople in 1341, 1346 and 1351. The last Council, which "justified" Palamas, proponent of the hesychastic life, is considered to be Ecumenical: "We think that the Council of Constantinople in the time of Saint Gregory Palamas in 1351, judging at least on the basis of its great theological work, can be and deserves to be counted among the Ecumenical Councils of the Orthodox Church, to which it is in no way inferior as to the soteriological significance of its theology. This Council constitutes the proof of the continuing conciliarity of the Orthodox Church and of the living experience and theology concerning salvation in Christ" - Met. Hierotheos, Orthodox Psychotherapy: The Science of the Fathers, (Birth of the Theotokos Monastery, 1994), pp. 326-327

See Synodikon of Orthodoxy from the book The Mind of the Orthodox Church by Met. Hierotheos for more from him on the idea. Here are a few other quotes, by John S. Romanides:

Quote
When it became clear that the Franks were not going to retreat from these politico-doctrinal policies, the Romans [ie. Orthodox] accepted the challenge and condemned both the Filioque and the Frankish double position on icons at the Eighth Ecumenical Synod of 879 in Constantinople-New Rome.  From the Roman [ie. Orthodox] viewpoint, however, the Roman tradition of the Fathers was not only not terminated in the eighth century, but continued a vigorous existence in free Romania in the East, as well as within Arab-occupied areas. Present research is now leading to the conclusion that the Roman Patristic period extended right in tot he period of Ottoman rule, after the fall of Constantinople New Rome. This means that the Eighth Ecumenical Synod (879), under Photios, the so-called Palamite Synods of the fourteenth century, and the Synods of the Roman Patriarchate during the Ottoman period, are all a continuation and an integral part of the history of Patristic theology. It is also a continuation of the Roman Christian tradition, minus the Patriarchate of Old Rome, which, since 1009 after having been captured, ceased to be Roman and became a Frankish institution." - John S. Romanides, Franks, Romans, Feudalism and Doctrine, Part 3

Quote
"All who have reached glorification testify to the fact that "it is impossible to express God and even more impossible to conceive Him" because they know by their experience that there is no similarity whatsoever between the created and the uncreated. God is "unmoved mover" and "moved" and "neither one. nor oneness nor unity,. nor divinity... nor sonship, nor fatherhood, etc." in the experience of glorification. The Bible and dogmas are guides to and abolished during glorification. They are not ends in themselves and have nothing to do with metaphysics, either with analogia entis or with analogia fidei. This means that words and concepts which do not contradict the experience of glorification and which lead to purification and illumination of the heart and glorification are Orthodox. Words and concepts which contradict glorification and lead away from cure and perfection in Christ are heretical. This is the key to the decisions of all Seven Roman Ecumenical Councils as well as that of the Eighth of 879 and especially of the Ninth of 1341." - John S. Romanides, Church Synods and Civilization

So, there are 10 Ecumenical Councils....

8th ------- 879    (Romanides)

9th ------- 1341   (Romanides)

10th ------ 1351   (+Vlachos)
Logged
Justin Kissel
Formerly Asteriktos
Protospatharios
****************
Offline Offline

Posts: 30,094


Goodbye for now, my friend


« Reply #10 on: October 19, 2010, 07:43:39 AM »

So, there are 10 Ecumenical Councils....

8th ------- 879    (Romanides)

9th ------- 1341   (Romanides)

10th ------ 1351   (+Vlachos)

Most seem to group a number of palamite councils together and speak of it as though it were a singular Ecumenical Council. I suppose one could argue that this was not without some precedent: as for example when the 2nd Ecumenical Council was held in 381, and they met again in 382, but we don't mention the second date; or considering the relationship of the Quinisext Council with the 6th Ecumenical Council, even though there was a ten year gap.
Logged

Paradosis ≠ Asteriktos ≠ Justin
Irish Hermit
Kibernetski Kaludjer
Warned
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Posts: 10,991


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us


« Reply #11 on: October 19, 2010, 09:17:47 AM »

Quote
The only Orthodox support for Eight Councils comes from the 1848 reply of some of the Orthodox Patriarchs to Pope Pius IX's letter.

I suppose it depends on where you are trying to draw support from. Certain Greek theologians have weighed in and said that they would accept and 8th and 9th Ecumenical Council


I would say that the only support which I find of value is the universally accepted tradition of the Church since we teach that it is the universal acceptance of the pleroma of the Church which determines if a Council receives the status and title of Ecumenical.

Just to quite a brother priest writing on this matter on another Orthodox forum...

"This still leaves the issue of how many ecumenical councils were there - but then this is a simple matter of Holy Tradition. The whole Church has embraced seven councils as "Ecumenical" and no more. There are other councils that the Church has embraced as important or or universal significance - but not of the same level of dogmatic authority. But in the end the tradition of the Church defines 7 ecumenical councils (to date). The universal embrace and acclamation of the Church is the only criterion of an "Ecumenical" council - and to date that universal embrace and acclamation has been given to 7 councils.
Fr David Moser "
http://www.monachos.net/forum/showthread.php?3398-Number-of-ecumenical-councils
Logged
Shanghaiski
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Antiochian
Posts: 7,973


Holy Trinity Church of Gergeti, Georgia


« Reply #12 on: October 19, 2010, 10:20:26 AM »

It is interesting that the 1848 reply also speaks of the first 7 Ecumenical Councils as the "7 ecumenical councils" and equate them with the 7 pillars of wisdom of Scripture.  I can't recall where I read it but the argument that, based on this, although the 8th and 9th are of Ecumenical status, that 1-7 have a primacy in that many of the Fathers saw in them the "seven pillars of wisdom" reported in Scripture.   Similar argument to the mysteries beyond the 1st 7--that the 7 great evangelical mysteries have a primacy.   But also, we speak of "the 12 apostles."   This does not detract from the fact that the 70 were also "apostles among the 70."   The 12 simply have a primacy.   

I like this explanation very much.

I think it's important to recognize that there is a trend to dogmatic reductionism in the Church--that is, if something is not discussed in the Seven Ecumenical Councils and dogmatized, it is up for negotiation. This is simply not the case, given the whole historical witness of the Church.
Logged

Quote from: GabrieltheCelt
If you spend long enough on this forum, you'll come away with all sorts of weird, untrue ideas of Orthodox Christianity.
Quote from: orthonorm
I would suggest most persons in general avoid any question beginning with why.
Carl Kraeff (Second Chance)
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 6,865



« Reply #13 on: October 19, 2010, 10:32:50 AM »

It bothers me that some of us think that we can have an ecumenical council that is attended only by the Eastern Orthodox churches. I certainly think that we can have a Pan-Orthodox Council that could be authoritative. And, yes: we do not need the heterodox Christian Churches to arrange our own affairs. But, we had long argued that the Roman Church was in error to designate as ecumenical those councils of theirs that either involved only themselves or had Orthodox participation but were later rejected by the Laos. Are we now to become like to Romans and declare ourselves capable to speak for the entire Body in matters of dogma?  Doesn't that separate us further from the Oriental Orthodox and the Roman Catholic Churches, and also our brothers and sisters in Trinitarian Protestant Churches? Why do this in the absence of any good reason?
« Last Edit: October 19, 2010, 10:37:55 AM by Second Chance » Logged

Michal: "SC, love you in this thread."
Anastasios
Webdespota
Administrator
Merarches
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Greek Old Calendarist
Posts: 10,487


Metropolitan Chrysostomos of Florina

anastasios0513
WWW
« Reply #14 on: October 19, 2010, 10:37:50 AM »




So, there are 10 Ecumenical Councils....

8th ------- 879    (Romanides)

9th ------- 1341   (Romanides)

10th ------ 1351   (+Vlachos)

Since it's been a year since this thread was discussed, I'd recommend everyone re-read this article to refresh some of the historical details:

http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=22:which-councils-are-ecumenical&catid=14:articles&Itemid=2

Sorry that the formatting is somewhat messed up; I will try to get that fixed.
« Last Edit: October 19, 2010, 10:37:59 AM by Fr. Anastasios » Logged

Please Buy My Book!

Past posts reflect stages of my life before my baptism may not be accurate expositions of Orthodox teaching. Also, I served as an Orthodox priest from 2008-2013, before resigning.
Iconodule
Uranopolitan
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA (Diocese of Eastern Pennsylvania)
Posts: 7,019


"My god is greater."


« Reply #15 on: October 19, 2010, 10:51:42 AM »

It bothers me that some of us think that we can have an ecumenical council that is attended only by the Eastern Orthodox churches. I certainly think that we can have a Pan-Orthodox Council that could be authoritative. And, yes: we do not need the heterodox Christian Churches to arrange our own affairs. But, we had long argued that the Roman Church was in error to designate as ecumenical those councils of theirs that either involved only themselves or had Orthodox participation but were later rejected by the Laos. Are we now to become like to Romans and declare ourselves capable to speak for the entire Body in matters of dogma?

We are the entire Body... the RC's are separated from the Body. That's the crucial distinction. The RC's chief error isn't in which councils they designate as ecumenical, but their heresy and schism.

Quote
Doesn't that separate us further from the Oriental Orthodox and the Roman Catholic Churches, and also our brothers and sisters in Trinitarian Protestant Churches? Why do this in the absence of any good reason?

Are you serious? Were the first two ecumenical councils not ecumenical because they rejected the Arians? The third for excluding Nestorians? By this logic there has never been any ecumenical council.
Logged

"A riddle or the cricket's cry
Is to doubt a fit reply." - William Blake
Carl Kraeff (Second Chance)
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 6,865



« Reply #16 on: October 19, 2010, 06:42:15 PM »

It bothers me that some of us think that we can have an ecumenical council that is attended only by the Eastern Orthodox churches. I certainly think that we can have a Pan-Orthodox Council that could be authoritative. And, yes: we do not need the heterodox Christian Churches to arrange our own affairs. But, we had long argued that the Roman Church was in error to designate as ecumenical those councils of theirs that either involved only themselves or had Orthodox participation but were later rejected by the Laos. Are we now to become like to Romans and declare ourselves capable to speak for the entire Body in matters of dogma?

We are the entire Body... the RC's are separated from the Body. That's the crucial distinction. The RC's chief error isn't in which councils they designate as ecumenical, but their heresy and schism.

Quote
Doesn't that separate us further from the Oriental Orthodox and the Roman Catholic Churches, and also our brothers and sisters in Trinitarian Protestant Churches? Why do this in the absence of any good reason?

Are you serious? Were the first two ecumenical councils not ecumenical because they rejected the Arians? The third for excluding Nestorians? By this logic there has never been any ecumenical council.

I prefer to look at the glass as half full. And, I pray that we are reunited again in truth and in love. If you have followed my posting you will notice that I am not any less Orthodox for holding such views.
Logged

Michal: "SC, love you in this thread."
Iconodule
Uranopolitan
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA (Diocese of Eastern Pennsylvania)
Posts: 7,019


"My god is greater."


« Reply #17 on: October 19, 2010, 08:16:06 PM »

I prefer to look at the glass as half full.

I prefer to look at the glass as full, to the brim. Nothing needs to be added.

 
Quote
And, I pray that we are reunited again in truth and in love. If you have followed my posting you will notice that I am not any less Orthodox for holding such views.

The branch theory? It's definitely not Orthodox.
« Last Edit: October 19, 2010, 08:17:15 PM by Iconodule » Logged

"A riddle or the cricket's cry
Is to doubt a fit reply." - William Blake
Carl Kraeff (Second Chance)
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 6,865



« Reply #18 on: October 19, 2010, 09:36:40 PM »

I prefer to look at the glass as half full.

I prefer to look at the glass as full, to the brim. Nothing needs to be added.

 
Quote
And, I pray that we are reunited again in truth and in love. If you have followed my posting you will notice that I am not any less Orthodox for holding such views.

The branch theory? It's definitely not Orthodox.

I was referring not to the Orthodox glass but to the heterodox Christian one. You seem to think that the heterodox glass is fully empty and I do not. As for the branch theory, I thought I had made it clear that I am not about the judge whether God's grace is present or absent amongst the heterodox. The only thing that I can affirm is that for me the Orthodox Church is the True Church of Christ our Lord.
Logged

Michal: "SC, love you in this thread."
Iconodule
Uranopolitan
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA (Diocese of Eastern Pennsylvania)
Posts: 7,019


"My god is greater."


« Reply #19 on: October 19, 2010, 09:54:17 PM »

I prefer to look at the glass as half full.

I prefer to look at the glass as full, to the brim. Nothing needs to be added.

 
Quote
And, I pray that we are reunited again in truth and in love. If you have followed my posting you will notice that I am not any less Orthodox for holding such views.

The branch theory? It's definitely not Orthodox.

I was referring not to the Orthodox glass but to the heterodox Christian one. You seem to think that the heterodox glass is fully empty and I do not. As for the branch theory, I thought I had made it clear that I am not about the judge whether God's grace is present or absent amongst the heterodox. The only thing that I can affirm is that for me the Orthodox Church is the True Church of Christ our Lord.

Then you agree that we have everything we need to hold ecumenical councils.
« Last Edit: October 19, 2010, 09:54:45 PM by Iconodule » Logged

"A riddle or the cricket's cry
Is to doubt a fit reply." - William Blake
deusveritasest
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: None
Jurisdiction: None
Posts: 7,528



WWW
« Reply #20 on: October 20, 2010, 12:56:03 AM »

2) It was accepted by the whole Church at the time and was only rejected by the West after they had gone into schism (making it parallel to Chalcedon).

I realize that this is rather tangential, but that is sheer nonsense. The East African church (including Copts, Ethiopians, and Eritreans) and the Armenian church never accepted Chalcedon and the schism occurred because of that.
Logged

I stopped posting here in August 2011 because of stark disagreement with the policies of the administration and moderating team of the forums. If you desire, feel free to PM me, message me on Facebook (link in profile), or email me: cddombrowski@gmail.com
deusveritasest
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: None
Jurisdiction: None
Posts: 7,528



WWW
« Reply #21 on: October 20, 2010, 12:59:31 AM »

Are we now to become like to Romans and declare ourselves capable to speak for the entire Body in matters of dogma?

If you had a proper ecclesiology you would understand your church to be the Body, and thus capable of speaking for the Body.
Logged

I stopped posting here in August 2011 because of stark disagreement with the policies of the administration and moderating team of the forums. If you desire, feel free to PM me, message me on Facebook (link in profile), or email me: cddombrowski@gmail.com
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Warned
Hypatos
*****************
Online Online

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,960



« Reply #22 on: January 06, 2011, 01:18:00 PM »

Quote from: Ialmisry
EP St. Ignatius' deposition was completely legal. The question was how canonical, and the councils of 859 and 861 found it canonical. Pope Nicholas' 863 council found otherwise, but it had no jurisdiction and was therefore void.  The council of 869 repeated the same mistake, and was vacated by the Council of Constantinople IV in 879.

And yet the schism ended with Photios deposed, Ignatios reinstated, and his view that the filioque constituted a heresy ignored for nearly 200 years, when it again became fashionable after the Churches went in to schism once more, for a different reason. It appears your councils didn't do too well on that whole "reception" thing.

No, it ended with EP St. Photios reconciled with EP St. Ignatius, EP St. Photios vindicated in 879, the acts of 869 voided. And all Orthodox Churches receive the Council of Constantinople IV (879) as authorititative, if not ecumenical.

We have LOTS of threads on EP St. Photios. Please do reply on one of them.
Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
Father H
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian--God's One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: UOCofUSA-Ecumenical Patriarchate
Posts: 2,611



« Reply #23 on: January 06, 2011, 06:00:01 PM »

Quote from: Ialmisry
EP St. Ignatius' deposition was completely legal. The question was how canonical, and the councils of 859 and 861 found it canonical. Pope Nicholas' 863 council found otherwise, but it had no jurisdiction and was therefore void.  The council of 869 repeated the same mistake, and was vacated by the Council of Constantinople IV in 879.
And yet the schism ended with Photios deposed, Ignatios reinstated, and his view that the filioque constituted a heresy ignored for nearly 200 years, when it again became fashionable after the Churches went in to schism once more, for a different reason. It appears your councils didn't do too well on that whole "reception" thing.
No, it ended with EP St. Photios reconciled with EP St. Ignatius, EP St. Photios vindicated in 879, the acts of 869 voided. And all Orthodox Churches receive the Council of Constantinople IV (879) as authorititative, if not ecumenical.
We have LOTS of threads on EP St. Photios. Please do reply on one of them.
Right, history is quite clear on this point.  St. Photius' reinstatement and vindication was the end of the schism. 
Logged
WetCatechumen
Roman Catholic
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic Christianity
Jurisdiction: Latin Rite - Archdiocese of Santa Fe; Ruthenian Byzantine Catholic Eparchy of Phoenix
Posts: 297



« Reply #24 on: January 07, 2011, 01:39:40 AM »

To Hades with all of this.

I'm going to conquer the world, declare myself its Emperor, and kidnap every person on the planet who calls himself bishop and can demonstrate that he has a line of descent back to the apostles and lock them in a conference room with bread, water, and a bit of wine until this all gets sorted out.

It's the only way to fix this mess.
Logged

"And because they have nothing better to do, they take cushion and chairs to Rome. And while the Pope is saying liturgy, they go, 'Oh, oh, oh, filioque!' And the Pope say, 'Filioque? That-uh sound nice! I think I divide-uh the Church over it!'" - Comrade Real Presence
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Warned
Hypatos
*****************
Online Online

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,960



« Reply #25 on: January 07, 2011, 04:25:00 AM »

To Hades with all of this.

I'm going to conquer the world, declare myself its Emperor, and kidnap every person on the planet who calls himself bishop and can demonstrate that he has a line of descent back to the apostles and lock them in a conference room with bread, water, and a bit of wine until this all gets sorted out.

It's the only way to fix this mess.
No. Embracing Orthodoxy is.
Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Warned
Hypatos
*****************
Online Online

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,960



« Reply #26 on: January 07, 2011, 04:33:04 AM »

I just posted the Definitinon of Constantinople IV.
Quote
"Jointly sanctifying and preserving intact the venerable and divine teaching of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ, which has been established in the bosom of our mind, with unhesitating resolve and purity of faith, as well as the sacred ordinances and canonical stipulations of his holy disciples and Apostles with an unwavering judgment, and indeed, those Seven holy and ecumenical Synods which were directed by the inspiration of the one and the same Holy Spirit and effected the [Christian] preaching, and jointly guarding with a most honest and unshakeable resolve the canonical institutions invulnerable and unfalsified, we expel those who removed themselves from the Church, and embrace and regard worthy of receiving those of the same faith or teachers of orthodoxy to whom honor and sacred respect is due as they themselves ordered. Thus, having in mind and declaring all these things, we embrace with mind and tongue (τῇ διανοίᾳ καὶ γλώσσῃ) and declare to all people with a loud voice the Horos (Rule) of the most pure faith of the Christians which has come down to us from above through the Fathers, subtracting nothing, adding nothing, falsifying nothing; for subtraction and addition, when no heresy is stirred up by the ingenious fabrications of the evil one, introduces disapprobation of those who are exempt from blame and inexcusable assault on the Fathers. As for the act of changing with falsified words the Horoi (Rules, Boundaries) of the Fathers is much worse that the previous one. Therefore, this holy and ecumenical Synod embracing whole-heartedly and declaring with divine desire and straightness of mind, and establishing and erecting on it the firm edifice of salvation, thus we think and loudly proclaim this message to all:

"I believe in One God, Father Almighty, ... and in One Lord Jesus Christ, the Only-begotten Son of God... and in the Holy Spirit, the Lord ... who proceeds from the Father... [the whole Creed is cited here]

Thus we think, in this confession of faith we were we baptized, through this one the word of truth proved that every heresy is broken to pieces and canceled out. We enroll as brothers and fathers and coheirs of the heavenly city those who think thus. If anyone, however, dares to rewrite and call Rule of Faith some other exposition besides that of the sacred Symbol which has been spread abroad from above by our blessed and holy Fathers even as far as ourselves, and to snatch the authority of the confession of those divine men and impose on it his own invented phrases (ἰδίαις εὑρεσιολογίαις) and put this forth as a common lesson to the faithful or to those who return from some kind of heresy, and display the audacity to falsify completely (κατακιβδηλεῦσαι ἀποθρασυνθείη) the antiquity of this sacred and venerable Horos (Rule) with illegitimate words, or additions, or subtractions, such a person should, according to the vote of the holy and Ecumenical Synods, which has been already acclaimed before us, be subjected to complete defrocking if he happens to be one of the clergymen, or be sent away with an anathema if he happens to be one of the lay people."
http://www.oodegr.com/english/dogma/synodoi/8th_Synod_Dragas.htm
Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
Nigula Qian Zishi
Administrator Emeritus, Retired Deacon, Inactive Poster, Active Orthodox Christian, Father, and Husband
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Greek Orthodox Archdiocese of America
Posts: 1,836


我美丽的妻子和我。

nstanosheck
WWW
« Reply #27 on: January 07, 2011, 10:16:54 AM »

OrthoWiki could have been a great source, but they made it closed and hard to contribute, so even on Orthodox subjects it is weak against regular wikipedia.org.
Logged

在基督         My Original Blog
尼古拉         My Facebook Profile
前执事         My Twitter Page
WetCatechumen
Roman Catholic
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic Christianity
Jurisdiction: Latin Rite - Archdiocese of Santa Fe; Ruthenian Byzantine Catholic Eparchy of Phoenix
Posts: 297



« Reply #28 on: January 07, 2011, 02:33:26 PM »

To Hades with all of this.

I'm going to conquer the world, declare myself its Emperor, and kidnap every person on the planet who calls himself bishop and can demonstrate that he has a line of descent back to the apostles and lock them in a conference room with bread, water, and a bit of wine until this all gets sorted out.

It's the only way to fix this mess.
No. Embracing Orthodoxy is.
Miaphysite or dyophysite Orthodoxy?

Which Patriarchate of Ukraine? Should I go OCA? Old Calendar or New Calendar? Is contraception okay? What about metaouisios in the Holy Eucharist - is that a doctrine or not? Is the Council of Jerusalem a real synod or not? Is ecumenism okay?

"Orthodoxy" is a mess. You have a lot of issues to fix. "Embracing Orthodoxy", as wonderful as that sounds, is extremely confusing, and your bishops need to be forced to come together to sort all these things out, like contraception, the liturgical calendar, overlapping jurisdictions in the United States, the mess in Ukraine, the situation between you guys and the miaphysite churches, and a whole host of other issues.

Did "embracing orthodoxy" fix the Arian crisis or the iconoclasm crisis or the Nestorian heresy or the Eutychean heresy? No - Emperors forcing bishops to get their acts together did.
Logged

"And because they have nothing better to do, they take cushion and chairs to Rome. And while the Pope is saying liturgy, they go, 'Oh, oh, oh, filioque!' And the Pope say, 'Filioque? That-uh sound nice! I think I divide-uh the Church over it!'" - Comrade Real Presence
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Warned
Hypatos
*****************
Online Online

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,960



« Reply #29 on: January 07, 2011, 03:34:35 PM »

To Hades with all of this.

I'm going to conquer the world, declare myself its Emperor, and kidnap every person on the planet who calls himself bishop and can demonstrate that he has a line of descent back to the apostles and lock them in a conference room with bread, water, and a bit of wine until this all gets sorted out.

It's the only way to fix this mess.
No. Embracing Orthodoxy is.
Miaphysite or dyophysite Orthodoxy?
Dyophysite Orthodoxy, but better a Miaphysite Orthodox than a dyophysite follower of the Vatican or Protestant. I dare say even those dyophysite Orthodox who claim the Miaphysite Orthodox confess a different Faith will agree with that.

Which Patriarchate of Ukraine?
Unfortunately there is no Patriarchate of Ukraine. The one Church in Ukraine in communion with the Orthodox Church is a Metropolitinate, but I would like to see him elevated as an autocephalous Patriarch.

Should I go OCA?

If you are in North America, yes. But any Church in the Episcopal Assembly of North America will do.

Old Calendar or New Calendar?
New Calendar, but there are plenty of those on the Old Calendar

Is contraception okay?
You would have to ask your Orthodox spiritual Father.

What about metaouisios in the Holy Eucharist - is that a doctrine or not?
That the Holy Eucharist is the flesh that hung on the Cross is dogma. Metaouisios is not, it's a term, and a foreign one at that.

Is the Council of Jerusalem a real synod or not?
Real synod, but that tells you nothing of its authority.

Is ecumenism okay?
Depends on what you mean by it. What is condemned as ecumenism is not.

"Orthodoxy" is a mess.
You are projecting your confused thinking.

You have a lot of issues to fix.
None that impede communion, except maybe the miaphysite issue.

"Embracing Orthodoxy", as wonderful as that sounds, is extremely confusing,
Wasn't confused at all when I did it.

and your bishops need to be forced to come together to sort all these things out, like contraception,
That your ecclesiastical leadership preach one thing, and your colleagues do another is your problem, not ours.  It is where scholastism has led you.

the liturgical calendar,
the ghost of Pope Victor still animates the Vatican I see.

overlapping jurisdictions in the United States,
The bishops have met.

the mess in Ukraine,
This?


the situation between you guys and the miaphysite churches,
http://www.orthodoxunity.org/


Did "embracing orthodoxy" fix the Arian crisis
Yes.

or the iconoclasm crisis
Yes.

or the Nestorian heresy
Yes.

or the Eutychean heresy?
Yes.

No - Emperors forcing bishops to get their acts together did.
The Emperors exiled Pope St. Athanasius five times.

The Emperors decreed the dogma of iconoclasm.

The Emperor Theodosios sponsored Nestorius, until his sister convinced him against him with the help of Pope St. Cyril.

The same empeoror killed EP St. Flavian, and sponsored Eutyches.

now, that wasn't so hard nor confusing.
« Last Edit: January 07, 2011, 03:35:04 PM by ialmisry » Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
Tags: Photios 
Pages: 1   Go Up
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.18 | SMF © 2013, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!
Page created in 0.149 seconds with 57 queries.