OrthodoxChristianity.net
April 23, 2014, 02:32:28 AM *
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
News: The Rules page has been updated.  Please familiarize yourself with its contents!
 
   Home   Help Calendar Contact Treasury Tags Login Register  
Poll
Question: Can Orthodox produce a full Ecumenical Council without Rome?
Yes - 21 (84%)
No - 2 (8%)
Maybe - 2 (8%)
Total Voters: 25

Pages: 1   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic: Can Orthodox produce a full Ecumenical Council without Rome?  (Read 2600 times) Average Rating: 0
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
Kaste
Site Supporter
Sr. Member
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Christian
Jurisdiction: member of the Invisible Church
Posts: 158


« on: December 15, 2009, 03:26:28 PM »

Can Orthodox produce a full Ecumenical Council with all the infallible and binding authority as the 7 Ecumenical councils? 

Met. Kallistos (Ware) says yes, but other Orthodox I've spoken with have said no, and that they need Rome to produce a fully Ecumenical Council with all the authority of the first 7. 

K
Logged
Fr. George
formerly "Cleveland"
Administrator
Stratopedarches
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox (Catholic) Christian
Jurisdiction: GOA - Metropolis of Pittsburgh
Posts: 19,844


May the Lord bless you and keep you always!


« Reply #1 on: December 15, 2009, 03:31:21 PM »

Can Orthodox produce a full Ecumenical Council with all the infallible and binding authority as the 7 Ecumenical councils? 

Met. Kallistos (Ware) says yes, but other Orthodox I've spoken with have said no, and that they need Rome to produce a fully Ecumenical Council with all the authority of the first 7.   

Rome is no longer a part of the Church, so no, we don't need 'em.  Just the Holy Spirit and lots of Orthodox bishops.
« Last Edit: December 15, 2009, 03:31:33 PM by Fr. George » 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.
scamandrius
Dr., Rdr. Scamandrius to you :)
Warned
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Greek Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Greek by desire; Antiochian by necessity
Posts: 5,343



« Reply #2 on: December 15, 2009, 03:31:57 PM »

Heretics are not part of the Christian oikoumene.  Thus, they're not needed.
Logged

I seek the truth by which no man was ever harmed--Marcus Aurelius

Those who do not read  history are doomed to get their facts from Hollywood--Anonymous

What earthly joy remains untouched by grief?--St. John Damascene
Cymbyz
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Greek Orthodox Archdiocese of America
Posts: 495



« Reply #3 on: December 15, 2009, 03:38:02 PM »

People here seem to forget that plenary general Councils of the Church are not deemed "Ecumenical" till long after the fact, despite the claims of some councils, at their convocation, to be "ecumenical."  What makes a Council Ecumenical is the subsequent assent to its dogmatic and canonical decisions by the Church at large--an overwhelming majority of the Faithful, and that not determined by plebiscite.  The Church, in the Orthodox view of ecclesiology, is not a secular institution, still less a political democracy.  It is a Divine organism, injected like a genetic or antiviral agent into an ailing world to heal it.
Logged

The end of the world
is as near as the day of your death;
watch and pray.
 
 Yahoo! & WLM ID: Owen
Fr. George
formerly "Cleveland"
Administrator
Stratopedarches
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox (Catholic) Christian
Jurisdiction: GOA - Metropolis of Pittsburgh
Posts: 19,844


May the Lord bless you and keep you always!


« Reply #4 on: December 15, 2009, 03:43:33 PM »

People here seem to forget that plenary general Councils of the Church are not deemed "Ecumenical" till long after the fact, despite the claims of some councils, at their convocation, to be "ecumenical."  What makes a Council Ecumenical is the subsequent assent to its dogmatic and canonical decisions by the Church at large--an overwhelming majority of the Faithful, and that not determined by plebiscite.  The Church, in the Orthodox view of ecclesiology, is not a secular institution, still less a political democracy.  It is a Divine organism, injected like a genetic or antiviral agent into an ailing world to heal it.

Yes and no - your assessment, while it works for us now, is a bit of an anachronism.  The councils were indeed Ecumenical even from their inception because they were convened by the Emperor of the Ecumene, and because their decisions had the force of law within the Empire.  There are only a few that were convened to be "Ecumenical" but which have not been considered as such later.  Since these two conditions are not able to be met, we do have to look beyond the Imperial convocation/recognition/mandate to the spiritual underpinnings of the Councils.

I do think, though, that we as Orthodox need to drop the "7 Councils" line and pick up the 8th/Photian (and likely even the 9th/Palamite).
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.
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

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: 35,626



« Reply #5 on: December 15, 2009, 03:46:59 PM »

Can Orthodox produce a full Ecumenical Council with all the infallible and binding authority as the 7 Ecumenical councils? 

Met. Kallistos (Ware) says yes, but other Orthodox I've spoken with have said no, and that they need Rome to produce a fully Ecumenical Council with all the authority of the first 7. 

K

We did it in 381 and 553.  We can do it today, if needed.

What's up Kaste, loose your faith in Met. Kallistos' infallibility?
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
Asteriktos
Protostrator
***************
Offline Offline

Faith: Like an arrow to the knee
Posts: 27,290


Russians. Even when holding a cat they're dour.


« Reply #6 on: December 15, 2009, 03:52:00 PM »

Fr. George mentioned the Palamite Councils, pointing to the fact that some Orthodox (albeit a small minority) would argue that the Orthodox have already had post-schism Ecumenical Councils without Rome. As to whether there is the need or ability to call further Ecumenical Councils, well I guess Fr. George hit on that as well. Suffice to say, if Orthodoxy doesn't call any further Ecumenical Councils, it is not because of what happened with the Church of Rome.

Now, on a more practical level, could the Orthodox call such a council? Probably not. The Orthodox have tried to organize a Council, on and off, since the early 1960's. The emperors did not have pre-conciliar meetings and whatnot for 50 years to decide what topics to discuss. If a council was needed, it was called. Not so in the modern age, apparently.
Logged
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

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: 35,626



« Reply #7 on: December 15, 2009, 04:10:36 PM »

Fr. George mentioned the Palamite Councils, pointing to the fact that some Orthodox (albeit a small minority) would argue that the Orthodox have already had post-schism Ecumenical Councils without Rome. As to whether there is the need or ability to call further Ecumenical Councils, well I guess Fr. George hit on that as well. Suffice to say, if Orthodoxy doesn't call any further Ecumenical Councils, it is not because of what happened with the Church of Rome.

Now, on a more practical level, could the Orthodox call such a council? Probably not. The Orthodox have tried to organize a Council, on and off, since the early 1960's. The emperors did not have pre-conciliar meetings and whatnot for 50 years to decide what topics to discuss. If a council was needed, it was called. Not so in the modern age, apparently.

Perhaps that is an indication, as St. Nicholai Vermilovich and others said, that such a Council is not needed.
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
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox (Catholic) Christian
Jurisdiction: GOA - Metropolis of Pittsburgh
Posts: 19,844


May the Lord bless you and keep you always!


« Reply #8 on: December 15, 2009, 04:21:45 PM »

Perhaps that is an indication, as St. Nicholai Vermilovich and others said, that such a Council is not needed.

I don't know if the status quo on certain issues is acceptable, and certainly there would be more credibility to the decision of a truly Pan-Orthodox Synod than to any other assembly.  I just don't know how I feel about the prospect that the Russian contingent would outnumber Alexandria, Antioch, Athens, Bulgaria, Constantinople, Cyprus, Jerusalem, and Serbia combined.  That's why, council or no, the first prayer when thinking about the leadership of the Church should be "O Heavenly King, Comforter..."
« Last Edit: December 15, 2009, 04:22:10 PM by Fr. George » 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.
augustin717
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: The other ROC
Posts: 5,520



« Reply #9 on: December 15, 2009, 04:25:32 PM »

Would they still outnumber all others combined?
Just curious.
Logged
ozgeorge
I'll take you for who you are if you take me for everything.
Hoplitarches
*************
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Oecumenical Patriarchate of Constantinople, the New Rome, the Great Church of Christ.
Posts: 16,382


My plans for retirement.


WWW
« Reply #10 on: December 15, 2009, 04:35:32 PM »

the first prayer when thinking about the leadership of the Church should be "O Heavenly King, Comforter..."
What strange ideas you have Father. Wink
Logged

If you're living a happy life as a Christian, you're doing something wrong.
simplygermain
beer-bellied tellitubby
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA - Northwest, Baby!
Posts: 771


Zechariah 11:7


WWW
« Reply #11 on: December 15, 2009, 04:40:07 PM »

As long as we could entertain inviting the OO's for a final decision on Co-Communing, I'm for a Pan-Orthodox Council. But it would take alot of preliminary regional councils to get there. Hopefully that is what the EP has in mind.
Logged

I believe, help Thou my unbelief!! - St. John of Krondstadt

http://Http://hairshirtagenda.blogspot.com

 Witega: "Bishops and Metropolitans and even Patriarchs have been removed under decidedly questionable circumstances before but the Church moves on."
Fr. George
formerly "Cleveland"
Administrator
Stratopedarches
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox (Catholic) Christian
Jurisdiction: GOA - Metropolis of Pittsburgh
Posts: 19,844


May the Lord bless you and keep you always!


« Reply #12 on: December 15, 2009, 05:10:56 PM »

As long as we could entertain inviting the OO's for a final decision on Co-Communing, I'm for a Pan-Orthodox Council. But it would take alot of preliminary regional councils to get there. Hopefully that is what the EP has in mind.

I think any sort of 'reunion' with the OO would have to be approached like a US Bill: separate approval of the same measure by both houses/groups (EO & OO playing House and Senate), and then final signature by the Executive (God).
« Last Edit: December 15, 2009, 05:11:12 PM by Fr. George » 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.
Shlomlokh
主哀れめよ!
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Bulgarian
Posts: 1,169



« Reply #13 on: December 15, 2009, 07:05:11 PM »

As long as we could entertain inviting the OO's for a final decision on Co-Communing, I'm for a Pan-Orthodox Council. But it would take alot of preliminary regional councils to get there. Hopefully that is what the EP has in mind.

I think any sort of 'reunion' with the OO would have to be approached like a US Bill: separate approval of the same measure by both houses/groups (EO & OO playing House and Senate), and then final signature by the Executive (God).
Haha. I like this, Father! Very good!

In Christ,
Andrew
Logged

"I will pour out my prayer unto the Lord, and to Him will I proclaim my grief; for with evils my soul is filled, and my life unto hades hath drawn nigh, and like Jonah I will pray: From corruption raise me up, O God." -Ode VI, Irmos of the Supplicatory Canon to the Theotokos
Kaste
Site Supporter
Sr. Member
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Christian
Jurisdiction: member of the Invisible Church
Posts: 158


« Reply #14 on: December 15, 2009, 09:21:18 PM »

Quote
Rome is no longer a part of the Church, so no, we don't need 'em.  Just the Holy Spirit and lots of Orthodox bishops.

How many bishops?  And what if a large minority of bishops don't agree with the Council's decision?

K
Logged
DavidH
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Catholic
Jurisdiction: ROCOR
Posts: 528



WWW
« Reply #15 on: December 15, 2009, 09:43:01 PM »

  There is both an Eastern Orthodox Patriarch of Alexandria and a Coptic one. Why has there not been appointed an Orthodox bishop of Rome since the Schism to make up the Pentarchy represented in the first 7 Ecumenical Councils? Or is it irrelevant so long as any future Ecumenical COuncil is represented by all the Orthodox Patriarchs of today? Were the EO and OO Patriarchs concurrent at the time of that schism to make it a totally different scenario than the one between Rome and Orthodoxy (hence no Orthodox Patriarch of Rome living down the street from the Latin Pope)?
Logged
scamandrius
Dr., Rdr. Scamandrius to you :)
Warned
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Greek Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Greek by desire; Antiochian by necessity
Posts: 5,343



« Reply #16 on: December 15, 2009, 09:55:02 PM »

Quote
Rome is no longer a part of the Church, so no, we don't need 'em.  Just the Holy Spirit and lots of Orthodox bishops.

How many bishops?  And what if a large minority of bishops don't agree with the Council's decision?

K

The Church is by nature conciliar.  Only 2 bishops opposed Nicaea in 325 and they were excommunicated promptly.  The church works in council to bind the truth through consensus and the work of the Holy Spirit.  It is a mystery as it is one way God reveals Himself to us.
Logged

I seek the truth by which no man was ever harmed--Marcus Aurelius

Those who do not read  history are doomed to get their facts from Hollywood--Anonymous

What earthly joy remains untouched by grief?--St. John Damascene
simplygermain
beer-bellied tellitubby
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA - Northwest, Baby!
Posts: 771


Zechariah 11:7


WWW
« Reply #17 on: December 16, 2009, 11:55:44 AM »

As long as we could entertain inviting the OO's for a final decision on Co-Communing, I'm for a Pan-Orthodox Council. But it would take alot of preliminary regional councils to get there. Hopefully that is what the EP has in mind.

I think any sort of 'reunion' with the OO would have to be approached like a US Bill: separate approval of the same measure by both houses/groups (EO & OO playing House and Senate), and then final signature by the Executive (God).
Haha. I like this, Father! Very good!

In Christ,
Andrew
yes, I have to agree. In this case, an Ecumenical Council doesn't need to be called either. Just Regional Councils for a number of yrs. in both sides, then represntatives meeting to finish the job. I believe this could be possible and pray for such. Lord have mercy +.
Logged

I believe, help Thou my unbelief!! - St. John of Krondstadt

http://Http://hairshirtagenda.blogspot.com

 Witega: "Bishops and Metropolitans and even Patriarchs have been removed under decidedly questionable circumstances before but the Church moves on."
Michał Kalina
Stratopedarches
**************
Offline Offline

Posts: 21,465


WWW
« Reply #18 on: December 16, 2009, 05:53:17 PM »

  There is both an Eastern Orthodox Patriarch of Alexandria and a Coptic one. Why has there not been appointed an Orthodox bishop of Rome since the Schism to make up the Pentarchy represented in the first 7 Ecumenical Councils? Or is it irrelevant so long as any future Ecumenical COuncil is represented by all the Orthodox Patriarchs of today? Were the EO and OO Patriarchs concurrent at the time of that schism to make it a totally different scenario than the one between Rome and Orthodoxy (hence no Orthodox Patriarch of Rome living down the street from the Latin Pope)?


I think that is was because the Byzantine Empire had no control upon the Rome so they couldn't appoint the EO Patriarch. What is more all Latins agreed with the Pope, there were no EO believers in western part of the Europe, so it was unnecessary.
Logged

Byzantinism
no longer posting here
simplygermain
beer-bellied tellitubby
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA - Northwest, Baby!
Posts: 771


Zechariah 11:7


WWW
« Reply #19 on: December 16, 2009, 05:56:30 PM »

  There is both an Eastern Orthodox Patriarch of Alexandria and a Coptic one. Why has there not been appointed an Orthodox bishop of Rome since the Schism to make up the Pentarchy represented in the first 7 Ecumenical Councils? Or is it irrelevant so long as any future Ecumenical COuncil is represented by all the Orthodox Patriarchs of today? Were the EO and OO Patriarchs concurrent at the time of that schism to make it a totally different scenario than the one between Rome and Orthodoxy (hence no Orthodox Patriarch of Rome living down the street from the Latin Pope)?


I think that is was because the Byzantine Empire had no control upon the Rome so they couldn't appoint the EO Patriarch. What is more all Latins agreed with the Pope, there were no EO believers in western part of the Europe, so it was unnecessary.
I thought I had read somewhere, can't remember where exactly but I'm sure I can find it, that there was for a time, a debate raging on in the west over who was Pope of the west, between Rome and the Gauls... Huh
« Last Edit: December 16, 2009, 05:56:52 PM by simplygermain » Logged

I believe, help Thou my unbelief!! - St. John of Krondstadt

http://Http://hairshirtagenda.blogspot.com

 Witega: "Bishops and Metropolitans and even Patriarchs have been removed under decidedly questionable circumstances before but the Church moves on."
Fr. George
formerly "Cleveland"
Administrator
Stratopedarches
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox (Catholic) Christian
Jurisdiction: GOA - Metropolis of Pittsburgh
Posts: 19,844


May the Lord bless you and keep you always!


« Reply #20 on: December 16, 2009, 06:00:00 PM »

There is both an Eastern Orthodox Patriarch of Alexandria and a Coptic one. Why has there not been appointed an Orthodox bishop of Rome since the Schism to make up the Pentarchy represented in the first 7 Ecumenical Councils? Or is it irrelevant so long as any future Ecumenical COuncil is represented by all the Orthodox Patriarchs of today? Were the EO and OO Patriarchs concurrent at the time of that schism to make it a totally different scenario than the one between Rome and Orthodoxy (hence no Orthodox Patriarch of Rome living down the street from the Latin Pope)?

Besides the feeling that we don't need to have a Bishop in Rome to have a full Church, the schism with Rome occurred differently than that with the OO: the break with the OO was as clear and quick as these sorts of things get, and each group was quick to move on with their own bishop in the city, since the accusation was of heresy.  The break with the RC was long, drawn out, and certainly more nuanced, with accusations of ecclesiological, theological, and tradition-al break; thus, the churches were in and out and in communion again for centuries before what turned out to be the final break (1054), and even then it wasn't considered permanent, so there wasn't the same push to set up altar-against-altar on our part.
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.
Kaste
Site Supporter
Sr. Member
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Christian
Jurisdiction: member of the Invisible Church
Posts: 158


« Reply #21 on: December 17, 2009, 11:59:15 AM »

Fr. George says Orthodox don't need to have the Bishop of Rome.

Scamandrius says the Church is conciliar in nature, and in the same breath that 2 bishops were promptly excommunicated for voting against Nicea's definition.

DavidH asked:

Quote
Why has there not been appointed an Orthodox bishop of Rome since the Schism to make up the Pentarchy represented in the first 7 Ecumenical Councils? Or is it irrelevant so long as any future Ecumenical Council is represented by all the Orthodox Patriarchs of today?

This is actually a very important question. The idea of the Pentarchy, 5 Patriarchs needed for full binding of councils, is so ingrained in Orthodoxy that I think Fr. George's assertion that one see, (Rome) can simply be dropped without being replaced is inconsistent with the idea of the Pentarchy. Orthodox like to say the Pentarchy just represented the whole bishops in general but which is it? If they did carry with their approval the authority of the whole bishops throughout the world then Rome is important and can't simply be dismissed as easily as Fr. George thinks. Instead it would be necessary to fill the 5th seat as DavidH presumes.  

If, on the other hand, the Pentarchy did not of themselves carry the authority of the whole Church, and instead, these Ecumenical councils simply consisted of the universal Church *of whom the Pentarchy was simply the most prominent* and for practical reasons, their approval was sought as being merely representative of the whole Bishops in the world, then Fr. George is right: losing a Patriarch isn't that important.  Fr. George and I think most modern Orthodox would subscribe to this latter view.  The problem though is that in order to bind the Church, according to this latter view, one would need all bishops to agree--an impossibility. Aside from this latter view's unhistoricalness, it shifts even further from a visible church ecclesiology and further into a "mysterious undefinable" Protestant notion of the Spirit guiding the Church.  This is afterall what Met. Kallistos settled on.  It's the only acceptable theory left once one denies Rome the full power of the keys.  

The theory that the Church is conciliar, all bishops equal, need consent of whole church (majority?)-even laity, looks good in theory, but it doesn't work in practice for a visible Church.  As we have talked about in the past, Orthodoxy cannot be certain of any of its teachings oddly enough after its separations from Rome.  Are unbaptised babies damned?  Does original sin alone damn us?  Is the filioque heresy?  Are the differences between Rome and Orthodoxy enough to warrant separation?  No one can say with certainty or infallibility.  The point is that both Rome and Orthodoxy have erred at very high levels, though at least Rome can define things infallibly if it needed to, as we have seen it has done in the past. 

The current Orthodox theory of confusing conciliarism does ironically, however, work well and consistently with an invisible church concept i.e. a mysterious, invisible method ensuring the Church doesn't get thrown off too much.  Sound a bit messy?  It is, and it's very Protestant.  Protestants allow for that messiness, or I should say they simply recognize it to be the way things work.  Not even a necessary evil, but just the way the Holy Spirit chooses to guide Christians for whatever reason (respecting man's free will, realizing inherent high chance of corruption with power and large institutions etc...).

I do not think there is an answer in Orthodoxy to the question of how many bishops are needed to agree before the Council is considered authoritative.  And that may be because Orthodoxy apart from Rome cannot call another infallible council equal in authority to the first seven.

Kaste
« Last Edit: December 17, 2009, 12:30:57 PM by Kaste » Logged
scamandrius
Dr., Rdr. Scamandrius to you :)
Warned
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Greek Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Greek by desire; Antiochian by necessity
Posts: 5,343



« Reply #22 on: December 17, 2009, 12:08:20 PM »

Fr. George says Orthodox don't need to have the Bishop of Rome.

Scamandrius says the Church is conciliar in nature, and in the same breath that 2 bishops were promptly excommunicated for voting against Nicea's definition.

No, that's not what I said.  The Church at Nicaea was divided almost evenly between the Athanasian (Orthodox) group and the Arian group.  The council worked tirelessly to win the Arians to the Orthodox position and it was done except for two.  It wasn't done by voting.  These two bishops refused to accept the endorsement of the council and only after numerous attempts at reconciliation failed, the bishops were excommunicated.  The conciliarity of the church prevailed, but, at the same time, it does not and will not accept heresy within the ranks.  The Council of Nicaea did not just excommunicate the Arians once they got there.  So, the Church is conciliar.
Logged

I seek the truth by which no man was ever harmed--Marcus Aurelius

Those who do not read  history are doomed to get their facts from Hollywood--Anonymous

What earthly joy remains untouched by grief?--St. John Damascene
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

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: 35,626



« Reply #23 on: December 17, 2009, 12:34:04 PM »

  There is both an Eastern Orthodox Patriarch of Alexandria and a Coptic one. Why has there not been appointed an Orthodox bishop of Rome since the Schism to make up the Pentarchy represented in the first 7 Ecumenical Councils? Or is it irrelevant so long as any future Ecumenical COuncil is represented by all the Orthodox Patriarchs of today? Were the EO and OO Patriarchs concurrent at the time of that schism to make it a totally different scenario than the one between Rome and Orthodoxy (hence no Orthodox Patriarch of Rome living down the street from the Latin Pope)?


I think that is was because the Byzantine Empire had no control upon the Rome so they couldn't appoint the EO Patriarch. What is more all Latins agreed with the Pope, there were no EO believers in western part of the Europe, so it was unnecessary.

But there were in southern Italy, which is how 1054 came down.

Really, until the Latins came and started appointing Eastern Patriarchs, culminating in 1204, things were not as cut and dry for setting up an Orthodox Pope in Rome. By that time, there was no means to do so, and you still had all those reunion schemes going on (there had been healed schisms even before Chalcedon with Rome and the East.  The Second Ecumenical Council took place during one of those schism) until centuries later in Florence.

Myself, don't think atagonizing the Vatican is worth it.  Let's have an Orthodox primate in Ravenna, Milan or Venice, and move one until the Vatican gets on with the program.
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
Papist
Patriarch of Pontification
Toumarches
************
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Byzantine
Posts: 11,963


Truth, Justice, and the American way!


« Reply #24 on: December 17, 2009, 12:37:57 PM »

 There is both an Eastern Orthodox Patriarch of Alexandria and a Coptic one. Why has there not been appointed an Orthodox bishop of Rome since the Schism to make up the Pentarchy represented in the first 7 Ecumenical Councils? Or is it irrelevant so long as any future Ecumenical COuncil is represented by all the Orthodox Patriarchs of today? Were the EO and OO Patriarchs concurrent at the time of that schism to make it a totally different scenario than the one between Rome and Orthodoxy (hence no Orthodox Patriarch of Rome living down the street from the Latin Pope)?


I think that is was because the Byzantine Empire had no control upon the Rome so they couldn't appoint the EO Patriarch. What is more all Latins agreed with the Pope, there were no EO believers in western part of the Europe, so it was unnecessary.

But there were in southern Italy, which is how 1054 came down.

Really, until the Latins came and started appointing Eastern Patriarchs, culminating in 1204, things were not as cut and dry for setting up an Orthodox Pope in Rome. By that time, there was no means to do so, and you still had all those reunion schemes going on (there had been healed schisms even before Chalcedon with Rome and the East.  The Second Ecumenical Council took place during one of those schism) until centuries later in Florence.

Myself, don't think atagonizing the Vatican is worth it.  Let's have an Orthodox primate in Ravenna, Milan or Venice, and move one until the Vatican gets on with the program.
Oh, Isa, do you really think we will ever "get with the program"? Smiley
« Last Edit: December 17, 2009, 12:38:52 PM by Papist » Logged

Note Papist's influence from the tyrannical monarchism of traditional papism .
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

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: 35,626



« Reply #25 on: December 17, 2009, 01:22:56 PM »

Fr. George says Orthodox don't need to have the Bishop of Rome.

Scamandrius says the Church is conciliar in nature, and in the same breath that 2 bishops were promptly excommunicated for voting against Nicea's definition.

DavidH asked:

Quote
Why has there not been appointed an Orthodox bishop of Rome since the Schism to make up the Pentarchy represented in the first 7 Ecumenical Councils? Or is it irrelevant so long as any future Ecumenical Council is represented by all the Orthodox Patriarchs of today?

This is actually a very important question. The idea of the Pentarchy, 5 Patriarchs needed for full binding of councils, is so ingrained in Orthodoxy

Says who?  The majority (4/5) were held without, and the Pentarchy didn't even exist for the first three (or four, as the Fourth was the one which made it).



Quote
that I think Fr. George's assertion that one see, (Rome) can simply be dropped without being replaced is inconsistent with the idea of the Pentarchy.

The problem with your theory is that the autocephaly of the Church of Cyprus predates the pentarchy, and there was a sixth patriarchate (Georgia) for the last three Ecumenical Councils.  No special theory on them?


Quote
Orthodox like to say the Pentarchy just represented the whole bishops in general but which is it?

Besides the canons referring to their autocephaly individually, there is no mention of a pentarchy in the canons nor dogmatic definitions of the Councils, anymore than there is any mention of a supremacy of Rome.


Quote
If they did carry with their approval the authority of the whole bishops throughout the world then Rome is important and can't simply be dismissed as easily as Fr. George thinks.

The Fathers of the Second and Fifth Ecumenical Councils thought so. They were right.



Quote
Instead it would be necessary to fill the 5th seat as DavidH presumes.

I'd like DavidH cite the canon or dogma that sets up 5 seats, let alone requiring that they all be filled.

Quote
If, on the other hand, the Pentarchy did not of themselves carry the authority of the whole Church, and instead, these Ecumenical councils simply consisted of the universal Church *of whom the Pentarchy was simply the most prominent* and for practical reasons, their approval was sought as being merely representative of the whole Bishops in the world, then Fr. George is right: losing a Patriarch isn't that important.  Fr. George and I think most modern Orthodox would subscribe to this latter view.  The problem though is that in order to bind the Church, according to this latter view, one would need all bishops to agree--an impossibility.


Then the Orthodox Church has specialized in the impossible for the last two thousand years: "For with God nothing will be impossible" Luke 1:35. Acts 15:
25;John 10:7-16.

Quote
Aside from this latter view's unhistoricalness,


You mean the "unhistoricalness" of your revision?

Quote
it shifts even further from a visible church ecclesiology and further into a "mysterious undefinable" Protestant notion of the Spirit guiding the Church.
 

John 3:8. The Orthodox Church was quite visible when it rebuked Pope St. Victor from all corners.


Quote
This is afterall what Met. Kallistos settled on.


Kaste's pope again ex cathedra....

Quote
It's the only acceptable theory left once one denies Rome the full power of the keys.  


Then you have a problem: even the "Catholic Encyclopeia" admits:
Quote
It is comparatively seldom that the Fathers, when speaking of the power of the keys, make any reference to the supremacy of St. Peter...In their references to the potestas clavium, they are usually intent on vindicating against the Montanist and Novatian heretics the power inherent in the Church to forgive. Thus St. Augustine in several passages declares that the authority to bind and loose was not a purely personal gift to St. Peter, but was conferred upon him as representing the Church. The whole Church, he urges, exercises the power of forgiving sins. This could not be had the gift been a personal one (tract. 1 in Joan., n. 12, P.L., XXXV, 1763; Serm. ccxcv, in P.L., XXXVIII, 1349)....
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/08631b.htm

Then there is that problem of the popes reversed themselves, e.g. the Council of Siena, at which point the pope, all three of them, had quite visible churches.

Quote
The theory that the Church is conciliar,

It's a dogma.

Quote
all bishops equal, need consent of whole church (majority?)-even laity, looks good in theory, but it doesn't work in practice for a visible Church.


Actually that is exactly how the Church visible in history, i.e. the Orthodox, has worked.

The Vatican model has worked this way:

http://wps.ablongman.com/wps/media/objects/262/268312/art/figures/KISH219.jpg

Quote
As we have talked about in the past, Orthodoxy cannot be certain of any of its teachings oddly enough after its separations from Rome.
 

Really? We have a Sunday during the Great Fast in which we commemorate St. Gregory Palamas and the Hesychists at the Council of Constantinople V 1341-1351 (hmmmm seems that date is after 1054).  And not only was Rome not there, it was against it:those in the East who submitted to the Vatican removed the feast from their books.  And then when Rome was around we had Constantinople IV 879, which is not classed as Ecumenical by most, although it vacated that of 869 that Rome repudiated but the Vatican found good enough to reverse Rome's judgement.

Quote
Are unbaptised babies damned?


Since your pope recently sent the dogma of Limbo into limbo, I'm suprised you bring this up.

Quote
Does original sin alone damn us?  Is the filioque heresy?


Yes. The Orthodox are, and have been, and ever shall be in agreement on that.


Quote
Are the differences between Rome and Orthodoxy enough to warrant separation?

Yes.


Quote
No one can say with certainty or infallibility.
 

The Fathers of IV and V Constantinople, St. Mark of Ephesus, those who fought the false unions of Florence, Brest, Uzhhorod, Alba Iulia etc. along with the Patriarchs of the East of 1848 said so with certainty.  With certainty, we Orthodox agree.

Quote
The point is that both Rome and Orthodoxy have erred at very high levels, though at least Rome can define things infallibly if it needed to, as we have seen it has done in the past.  


Like at Siena?

Quote
The current Orthodox theory of confusing conciliarism does ironically, however, work well and consistently with an invisible church concept i.e. a mysterious, invisible method ensuring the Church doesn't get thrown off too much.  Sound a bit messy?  It is, and it's very Protestant.
 

Well you are the resident expert of the invisible church, being a self identified member of the invisible churhc (which would make you visible, wouldn't it?).  But it is evident you near next to nothing of Orthodoxy.


Quote
Protestants allow for that messiness, or I should say they simply recognize it to be the way things work.  Not even a necessary evil, but just the way the Holy Spirit chooses to guide Christians for whatever reason (respecting man's free will, realizing inherent high chance of corruption with power and large institutions etc...).

I do not think there is an answer in Orthodoxy to the question of how many bishops are needed to agree before the Council is considered authoritative.  And that may be because Orthodoxy apart from Rome cannot call another infallible council equal in authority to the first seven.
Since you are not a member of the visible Orthodox Church, your thoughts matter how?
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
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

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: 35,626



« Reply #26 on: December 17, 2009, 01:28:54 PM »

 There is both an Eastern Orthodox Patriarch of Alexandria and a Coptic one. Why has there not been appointed an Orthodox bishop of Rome since the Schism to make up the Pentarchy represented in the first 7 Ecumenical Councils? Or is it irrelevant so long as any future Ecumenical COuncil is represented by all the Orthodox Patriarchs of today? Were the EO and OO Patriarchs concurrent at the time of that schism to make it a totally different scenario than the one between Rome and Orthodoxy (hence no Orthodox Patriarch of Rome living down the street from the Latin Pope)?


I think that is was because the Byzantine Empire had no control upon the Rome so they couldn't appoint the EO Patriarch. What is more all Latins agreed with the Pope, there were no EO believers in western part of the Europe, so it was unnecessary.

But there were in southern Italy, which is how 1054 came down.

Really, until the Latins came and started appointing Eastern Patriarchs, culminating in 1204, things were not as cut and dry for setting up an Orthodox Pope in Rome. By that time, there was no means to do so, and you still had all those reunion schemes going on (there had been healed schisms even before Chalcedon with Rome and the East.  The Second Ecumenical Council took place during one of those schism) until centuries later in Florence.

Myself, don't think atagonizing the Vatican is worth it.  Let's have an Orthodox primate in Ravenna, Milan or Venice, and move one until the Vatican gets on with the program.
Oh, Isa, do you really think we will ever "get with the program"? Smiley

"For with God nothing will be impossible" Luke 1:35.
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: ecumenical councils 
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 0.116 seconds with 56 queries.