OrthodoxChristianity.net
July 23, 2014, 04:40:35 PM *
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 2 3 4 5 All   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic: Description of the conditions necessary for a council to be regarded as ecumenic  (Read 13640 times) Average Rating: 0
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
militantsparrow
Laurence
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Antiochian Orthodox Christian Archdiocese of North America
Posts: 614


militantsparrow
« on: April 18, 2010, 02:14:59 PM »

I just discovered the document,
The Role of the Bishop of Rome in the Communion of the Church in the First Millennium.

I realize it is not official yet (or maybe ever), but there are a few things in the letter which strike me as problematic. The description of what is necessary for a council to be considered ecumenical seems to go against my previous understanding of either side.

Quote
27. The clearest description of the conditions necessary for a council to be regarded as ecumenical was given by the seventh Ecumenical Council (Nicaea II, 787), the final council to be recognised as ecumenical both in the East and in the West:
– it has to be accepted by the heads (proedroi) of the churches, and they have to be in agreement (symphonia) with it;
– the pope of Rome has to be a "co-operator" or "fellow worker" (synergos) with the council;
– the patriarchs of the East have to be "in agreement" (symphronountes);
– the teaching of the council must be in accord with that of previous ecumenical councils;
– the council must be given its own specific number, so as to be placed in the sequence of councils accepted by the Church as a whole...

I looked over the Ravenna document and the documents from Nicaea II, but neither seemed to express these points as succinctly. Does anyone know where I can find the cannons which support the two bolded points above--especially the necessity for the patriarchs of the East to be in agreement.

Thank you and God bless.
Logged

"Yeah, the sparrow hath found an house..." -Psalm 84:3
Hamartolos
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Antiochian
Posts: 612


« Reply #1 on: April 18, 2010, 03:27:06 PM »

Ecumenical actually means the whole body of or whole church.  When councils are held that are without whole representation, they are only local councils.  Regardless of what anyone's religious convictions are, once the Christian church split apart after the 7th (8th council seen as a "robber council") there could no longer be an "Ecumenical" council.  

There can never be an Ecumenical Council until the East and West are reunited (not sure if reunion with Protestants is an issue in regard to Church Councils; correct me if I'm wrong).  As I'm sure you know, Catholicism sees their 'councils' as 'Ecumenical' which depletes the whole meaning of Ecumenical.
« Last Edit: April 18, 2010, 03:30:02 PM by mctaviix » Logged

Formerly known as "mctavix"
jckstraw72
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 1,174



« Reply #2 on: April 18, 2010, 03:34:50 PM »

teh departure of Rome does not mean we cant have an Ecumenical Council! the Orthodox Church IS the entire Church therefore She can have an Ecumenical Council. Those outside of the Church are inconsequential to this matter.
Logged
Hamartolos
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Antiochian
Posts: 612


« Reply #3 on: April 18, 2010, 03:38:37 PM »

teh departure of Rome does not mean we cant have an Ecumenical Council! the Orthodox Church IS the entire Church therefore She can have an Ecumenical Council. Those outside of the Church are inconsequential to this matter.

Actually that's exactly what it means.  Note how the Orthodox Church has had councils, ex. 5th Council of Constantinople, Synod of Jerusalem, but did not call them Ecumenical.  The Orthodox Church is the undivided Church of Christ, but its brethren have separated themselves from it. 
Logged

Formerly known as "mctavix"
jckstraw72
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 1,174



« Reply #4 on: April 18, 2010, 03:45:51 PM »

we had Ecumenical Councils even after the Nestorians and Orientals left though ....
Logged
PeterTheAleut
The Right Blowhard Peter the Furtive of Yetts O'Muckhart
Section Moderator
Protospatharios
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 31,441


EXTERMINATE!


« Reply #5 on: April 18, 2010, 03:49:06 PM »

we had Ecumenical Councils even after the Nestorians and Orientals left though ....
Yes, but we EO and RC are also the only ones who call those councils ecumenical.
Logged
Fr. George
formerly "Cleveland"
Administrator
Stratopedarches
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox (Catholic) Christian
Jurisdiction: GOA - Metropolis of Pittsburgh
Posts: 19,907


May the Lord bless you and keep you always!


« Reply #6 on: April 18, 2010, 04:02:20 PM »

Ecumenical actually means the whole body of or whole church.  When councils are held that are without whole representation, they are only local councils.  Regardless of what anyone's religious convictions are, once the Christian church split apart after the 7th (8th council seen as a "robber council") there could no longer be an "Ecumenical" council. 

There can never be an Ecumenical Council until the East and West are reunited (not sure if reunion with Protestants is an issue in regard to Church Councils; correct me if I'm wrong).  As I'm sure you know, Catholicism sees their 'councils' as 'Ecumenical' which depletes the whole meaning of Ecumenical.

I completely disagree.  First, "Ecumenical Councils" do not have formal criteria for their designation.  Some councils have been viewed as Ecumenical from the start, some are viewed as such only by a part of the Church, some decided to give themselves the title but they have subsequently been viewed not as "Ecumenical," and some have been called "Ecumenical" even though there have been no other subsequent "Ecumenical" councils to call them thusly (depending on your POV, either the 7th or the 9th falls into this category). 

Second, The Church is Whole, period - she can have an Ecumenical Council without those who have voluntarily left her, because she still is an ontological & ecclesiological whole.  It is none of our concern (as far as calling a council) that Rome has left; the Body of Christ is complete both with and without her, and as such she can have Ecumenical Councils with or without her.  To deny the Church's ability to call such a council is to deny both the Spirit's work within the Church and the very line from the 2nd Ecumenical Council that we repeat at least weekly, being: "(I believe) In One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church."

IMO, we have already had two Ecumenical Councils without the approval or presence of Rome: the 8th (Photian) which Rome did not approve of until later, and the 9th (Palamite) which took place well after the schism had solidified itself.  If you want to make an argument from history, then we've never had an ecumenical council without any of the following: The Holy Spirit, the Patriarchs of Alexandria, Antioch, or Jerusalem, a Bishop of Constantinople, or the Emperor of the Romans and all the Ecumene.  But threads like this, while well-meaning, can only accomplish that: figure out what Ecumenical Councils have had in the past, rather than disseminating any real list of what a council needs to be Ecumenical.
« Last Edit: April 18, 2010, 04:03:16 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.
Anastasios
Webdespota
Administrator
Merarches
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Greek Old Calendarist
Posts: 10,440


Metropolitan Chrysostomos of Florina

anastasios0513
WWW
« Reply #7 on: April 18, 2010, 04:17:45 PM »

teh departure of Rome does not mean we cant have an Ecumenical Council! the Orthodox Church IS the entire Church therefore She can have an Ecumenical Council. Those outside of the Church are inconsequential to this matter.

Actually that's exactly what it means.  Note how the Orthodox Church has had councils, ex. 5th Council of Constantinople, Synod of Jerusalem, but did not call them Ecumenical.  The Orthodox Church is the undivided Church of Christ, but its brethren have separated themselves from it. 

The reason we've not had another ecumenical council, IMO, is because there is no empire and no emperor, not because the patriarchate of Rome wasn't invited (besides, we could just appoint an Orthodox bishop in Rome if we wanted to, but we don't play that kind of game, even though it was done to us in the past plenty of times).

We had what for all intents and purposes is an ecumenical council in the 14th century after Rome was removed from the Church of Christ, and this Council's teachings were included in the liturgical commemorations on the 2nd Sunday of Lent, although the Council itself was not given a commemoration.  This is probably out of a deference to the past Fathers; as time went on, each generation became more reticent to compare itself with the glory of the "Golden Age" of Councils 1-7, but that doesn't change their truth and the fact that the Church would have every right to add a commemoration of Councils 8 and 9 if it wished to.

We've had plenty of pan-Orthodox Councils since the fall of the empire, which are binding. It's just the label has changed, and they have not been as earth-shattering/watershed as previous ones, which may account for why they were not added into the Church's memory.

In the end, any theory that we can't have a council until the heretics come back implicitly contradicts our belief in the unicity of the Church of Christ.
Logged

Met. Demetrius's Enthronement

Disclaimer: Past posts reflect stages of my life before my baptism may not be accurate expositions of Orthodox teaching.

I served as an Orthodox priest from June 2008 to April 2013, before resigning for personal reasons
militantsparrow
Laurence
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Antiochian Orthodox Christian Archdiocese of North America
Posts: 614


militantsparrow
« Reply #8 on: April 18, 2010, 04:25:33 PM »

This document I linked to states that the 7th ecumenical council gave certain necessary conditions for a council to be considered ecumenical. I didn't see anything like that in my reading of the documents from the council. I was hoping someone could point me in the right direction.
Logged

"Yeah, the sparrow hath found an house..." -Psalm 84:3
Fr. George
formerly "Cleveland"
Administrator
Stratopedarches
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox (Catholic) Christian
Jurisdiction: GOA - Metropolis of Pittsburgh
Posts: 19,907


May the Lord bless you and keep you always!


« Reply #9 on: April 18, 2010, 04:50:52 PM »

This document I linked to states that the 7th ecumenical council gave certain necessary conditions for a council to be considered ecumenical. I didn't see anything like that in my reading of the documents from the council. I was hoping someone could point me in the right direction.

I don't remember seeing it in there, either, but it has been awhile since I've read the documents/decisions of Nicea II.
« Last Edit: April 18, 2010, 04:51:05 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.
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: 37,124



« Reply #10 on: April 18, 2010, 05:26:57 PM »

I just discovered the document,
The Role of the Bishop of Rome in the Communion of the Church in the First Millennium.

I realize it is not official yet (or maybe ever), but there are a few things in the letter which strike me as problematic. The description of what is necessary for a council to be considered ecumenical seems to go against my previous understanding of either side.

Quote
27. The clearest description of the conditions necessary for a council to be regarded as ecumenical was given by the seventh Ecumenical Council (Nicaea II, 787), the final council to be recognised as ecumenical both in the East and in the West:
– it has to be accepted by the heads (proedroi) of the churches, and they have to be in agreement (symphonia) with it;
– the pope of Rome has to be a "co-operator" or "fellow worker" (synergos) with the council;
– the patriarchs of the East have to be "in agreement" (symphronountes);
– the teaching of the council must be in accord with that of previous ecumenical councils;
– the council must be given its own specific number, so as to be placed in the sequence of councils accepted by the Church as a whole...

I looked over the Ravenna document and the documents from Nicaea II, but neither seemed to express these points as succinctly. Does anyone know where I can find the cannons which support the two bolded points above--especially the necessity for the patriarchs of the East to be in agreement.

Thank you and God bless.
No, because they do not exist.  The Second Ecumenical Council had no representative of Rome, and the Pope of Rome had no hand in writing the Creed there.  There is no such distinction as "Patriarchs of the East" in the canons or anything else for that matter.
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
jckstraw72
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 1,174



« Reply #11 on: April 18, 2010, 07:04:37 PM »

we had Ecumenical Councils even after the Nestorians and Orientals left though ....
Yes, but we EO and RC are also the only ones who call those councils ecumenical.

exactly, thats the point -- we can still have Ecumenical Councils even after signifcant bodies leave the Church.
Logged
PeterTheAleut
The Right Blowhard Peter the Furtive of Yetts O'Muckhart
Section Moderator
Protospatharios
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 31,441


EXTERMINATE!


« Reply #12 on: April 18, 2010, 07:18:23 PM »

we had Ecumenical Councils even after the Nestorians and Orientals left though ....
Yes, but we EO and RC are also the only ones who call those councils ecumenical.

exactly, thats the point -- we can still have Ecumenical Councils even after signifcant bodies leave the Church.
But that's based on how you define the Church--who's in and who's out.
Logged
jckstraw72
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 1,174



« Reply #13 on: April 18, 2010, 07:26:51 PM »

we had Ecumenical Councils even after the Nestorians and Orientals left though ....
Yes, but we EO and RC are also the only ones who call those councils ecumenical.

exactly, thats the point -- we can still have Ecumenical Councils even after signifcant bodies leave the Church.
But that's based on how you define the Church--who's in and who's out.


i have no idea what youre talking about. the Church remains one and whole, no matter who chooses to leave. therefore, we can still have Ecumenical Councils, as history demonstrates.
Logged
Irish Hermit
Kibernetski Kaludjer
Warned
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Posts: 10,991


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us


« Reply #14 on: April 18, 2010, 07:54:04 PM »

we had Ecumenical Councils even after the Nestorians and Orientals left though ....
Yes, but we EO and RC are also the only ones who call those councils ecumenical.

exactly, thats the point -- we can still have Ecumenical Councils even after signifcant bodies leave the Church.
Christ is Risen!

You will note that there has been for decades various mentions of the possibility of the upcoming Great and Holy Council becoming the 8th Ecumenical Council.  The Council will include every Orthodox Church. None will be excluded although the OCA will attend with a question mark over its autocephalic status (assuming that the contention over this is not resolved prior to the Council.)
Logged
PeterTheAleut
The Right Blowhard Peter the Furtive of Yetts O'Muckhart
Section Moderator
Protospatharios
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 31,441


EXTERMINATE!


« Reply #15 on: April 18, 2010, 08:07:23 PM »

we had Ecumenical Councils even after the Nestorians and Orientals left though ....
Yes, but we EO and RC are also the only ones who call those councils ecumenical.

exactly, thats the point -- we can still have Ecumenical Councils even after signifcant bodies leave the Church.
But that's based on how you define the Church--who's in and who's out.


i have no idea what youre talking about. the Church remains one and whole, no matter who chooses to leave. therefore, we can still have Ecumenical Councils, as history demonstrates.
Not disagreeing with that.  Our disagreement is apparently over who is in the Church and who is outside it.  I'm just postulating, in opposition to your insinuation that the OO left the Church, that if the OO never separated from the Church, then only our first three Ecumenical Councils can be considered truly ecumenical, since the OO never accepted the next four.
« Last Edit: April 18, 2010, 08:07:50 PM by PeterTheAleut » Logged
Irish Hermit
Kibernetski Kaludjer
Warned
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Posts: 10,991


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us


« Reply #16 on: April 18, 2010, 08:28:19 PM »

we had Ecumenical Councils even after the Nestorians and Orientals left though ....
Yes, but we EO and RC are also the only ones who call those councils ecumenical.

exactly, thats the point -- we can still have Ecumenical Councils even after signifcant bodies leave the Church.
But that's based on how you define the Church--who's in and who's out.


i have no idea what youre talking about. the Church remains one and whole, no matter who chooses to leave. therefore, we can still have Ecumenical Councils, as history demonstrates.
Not disagreeing with that.  Our disagreement is apparently over who is in the Church and who is outside it.  I'm just postulating, in opposition to your insinuation that the OO left the Church, that if the OO never separated from the Church, then only our first three Ecumenical Councils can be considered truly ecumenical, since the OO never accepted the next four.
Christ is Risen!

A confirmation of the Orthodox judgement of whom it sees as within the Church will come in the form of the list of participant Churches at the forthcoming Great and Holy Council.  In actual fact we are already aware of the participating Churches and so we may determinine who holds membership in the Church.  None will be excluded from the Council who should be there and none will be included who should not be there.  Churches such as the True Orthodox Church of Serbia, the Walled Off Synod in Protest of Phili, will not be participating.
Logged
Hamartolos
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Antiochian
Posts: 612


« Reply #17 on: April 18, 2010, 10:50:12 PM »

we had Ecumenical Councils even after the Nestorians and Orientals left though ....
Yes, but we EO and RC are also the only ones who call those councils ecumenical.

exactly, thats the point -- we can still have Ecumenical Councils even after signifcant bodies leave the Church.
Christ is Risen!

You will note that there has been for decades various mentions of the possibility of the upcoming Great and Holy Council becoming the 8th Ecumenical Council.  The Council will include every Orthodox Church. None will be excluded although the OCA will attend with a question mark over its autocephalic status (assuming that the contention over this is not resolved prior to the Council.)

I apologize if what I said was incorrect.  My conclusion was reached by what I've read and been told by several priests.  

Irish Hermit, could you give me any links or information on this possible Council you speak of?  I have not heard of this before.  Such a thing would be incredible to be alive to witness. 
« Last Edit: April 18, 2010, 10:50:56 PM by mctaviix » Logged

Formerly known as "mctavix"
Irish Hermit
Kibernetski Kaludjer
Warned
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Posts: 10,991


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us


« Reply #18 on: April 18, 2010, 11:06:59 PM »

we had Ecumenical Councils even after the Nestorians and Orientals left though ....
Yes, but we EO and RC are also the only ones who call those councils ecumenical.

exactly, thats the point -- we can still have Ecumenical Councils even after signifcant bodies leave the Church.
Christ is Risen!

You will note that there has been for decades various mentions of the possibility of the upcoming Great and Holy Council becoming the 8th Ecumenical Council.  The Council will include every Orthodox Church. None will be excluded although the OCA will attend with a question mark over its autocephalic status (assuming that the contention over this is not resolved prior to the Council.)

I apologize if what I said was incorrect.  My conclusion was reached by what I've read and been told by several priests. 

What you said was quite correct and I was agreeing with you.

Quote
Irish Hermit, could you give me any links or information on this possible Council you speak of?  I have not heard of this before.  Such a thing would be incredible to be alive to witness. 

Busy right now.... try two web searches

1. chambesy council patriarchate

and

2. chambesy council popovic
Logged
Hamartolos
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Antiochian
Posts: 612


« Reply #19 on: April 18, 2010, 11:33:05 PM »

Thanks for the links...prayerfully we will see this soon.
Logged

Formerly known as "mctavix"
Anastasios
Webdespota
Administrator
Merarches
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Greek Old Calendarist
Posts: 10,440


Metropolitan Chrysostomos of Florina

anastasios0513
WWW
« Reply #20 on: April 18, 2010, 11:47:14 PM »



A confirmation of the Orthodox judgement of whom it sees as within the Church will come in the form of the list of participant Churches at the forthcoming Great and Holy Council.  In actual fact we are already aware of the participating Churches and so we may determinine who holds membership in the Church.  None will be excluded from the Council who should be there and none will be included who should not be there.  Churches such as the True Orthodox Church of Serbia, the Walled Off Synod in Protest of Phili, will not be participating.

Quite a large percentage of the clergy of your communion accept the Non-Chalcedonians as in the Church, yet I do not see them being invited to this would-be 10th ecumenical council. Perhaps the invitation list is not as comprehensive as you suggest, and PeterTheAleut raises a valid point; after all, if Non-Chalcedonians are still in the Church, but only accept 3 councils, then how are there 7 (or 9) already?

Maybe you do not personally believe in the "Two Families" theory of Orthodoxy, but it's certainly not a fringe view amongst clergy in your communion, so I am curious how you reconcile these quite divergent views? Or is the "Two Families" language just diplomacy that shouldn't really be taken seriously?
Logged

Met. Demetrius's Enthronement

Disclaimer: Past posts reflect stages of my life before my baptism may not be accurate expositions of Orthodox teaching.

I served as an Orthodox priest from June 2008 to April 2013, before resigning for personal reasons
Irish Hermit
Kibernetski Kaludjer
Warned
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Posts: 10,991


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us


« Reply #21 on: April 19, 2010, 12:55:58 AM »


A confirmation of the Orthodox judgement of whom it sees as within the Church will come in the form of the list of participant Churches at the forthcoming Great and Holy Council.  In actual fact we are already aware of the participating Churches and so we may determinine who holds membership in the Church.  None will be excluded from the Council who should be there and none will be included who should not be there.  Churches such as the True Orthodox Church of Serbia, the Walled Off Synod in Protest of Phili, will not be participating.

Quite a large percentage of the clergy of your communion accept the Non-Chalcedonians as in the Church, yet I do not see them being invited to this would-be 10th ecumenical council. Perhaps the invitation list is not as comprehensive as you suggest, and PeterTheAleut raises a valid point; after all, if Non-Chalcedonians are still in the Church, but only accept 3 councils, then how are there 7 (or 9) already?

Maybe you do not personally believe in the "Two Families" theory of Orthodoxy, but it's certainly not a fringe view amongst clergy in your communion, so I am curious how you reconcile these quite divergent views? Or is the "Two Families" language just diplomacy that shouldn't really be taken seriously?
Christ is Risen!

Dear Father,

Do you have any statements from the Holy Synod of the Russian Orthodox Church which substantiate the claim that a "Two Family" theory is advocated by my Church?  This is the first time I have heard of it.

Your refer to Peter's point but I am not sure really what point Peter wishes to make.   It would be a surprise to me if his Church accepted the non-Chalcedonian Churches as the Church.  Is there any statement from the OCA Synod on this matter?

I am sure that none of the Churches such as the Russian, the Greek, the Serbian, the Bulgarian, Jerusalem, the OCA would accept the non-Chalcedonian Christians as in the same Church as them.  One group demands 7 Ecumenical Councils and the other denies 4 of them.     We are frequently called the Church of the Seven Councils, not of the Three Councils.  

I see you are referring to our upcoming Council as the 10th.   I am not sure why.  Our bishops and theologians refer to it as the 8th (assuming it is even eventually accepted as an Ecumenical Council.)

Just as an aside  ~ is your Greek Orthodox Church acknowledging Nine Ecumenical Councils?  Has that been officially stated by your Synod?



Maybe you do not personally believe in the "Two Families" theory of Orthodoxy....

Of course not.  I really have no "personal" belief.   We must accept not our "personal" belief but the teaching of our Church.  If there is anybody holding a "Two  Families" theory of Orthodoxy it is they who are holding a"personal" belief.
« Last Edit: April 19, 2010, 12:57:38 AM by Irish Hermit » Logged
PeterTheAleut
The Right Blowhard Peter the Furtive of Yetts O'Muckhart
Section Moderator
Protospatharios
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 31,441


EXTERMINATE!


« Reply #22 on: April 19, 2010, 02:45:28 AM »


A confirmation of the Orthodox judgement of whom it sees as within the Church will come in the form of the list of participant Churches at the forthcoming Great and Holy Council.  In actual fact we are already aware of the participating Churches and so we may determinine who holds membership in the Church.  None will be excluded from the Council who should be there and none will be included who should not be there.  Churches such as the True Orthodox Church of Serbia, the Walled Off Synod in Protest of Phili, will not be participating.

Quite a large percentage of the clergy of your communion accept the Non-Chalcedonians as in the Church, yet I do not see them being invited to this would-be 10th ecumenical council. Perhaps the invitation list is not as comprehensive as you suggest, and PeterTheAleut raises a valid point; after all, if Non-Chalcedonians are still in the Church, but only accept 3 councils, then how are there 7 (or 9) already?

Maybe you do not personally believe in the "Two Families" theory of Orthodoxy, but it's certainly not a fringe view amongst clergy in your communion, so I am curious how you reconcile these quite divergent views? Or is the "Two Families" language just diplomacy that shouldn't really be taken seriously?
Christ is Risen!

Dear Father,

Do you have any statements from the Holy Synod of the Russian Orthodox Church which substantiate the claim that a "Two Family" theory is advocated by my Church?  This is the first time I have heard of it.

Your refer to Peter's point but I am not sure really what point Peter wishes to make.   It would be a surprise to me if his Church accepted the non-Chalcedonian Churches as the Church.  Is there any statement from the OCA Synod on this matter?
Fr. Ambrose, I think Fr. Anastasios actually understands my point pretty well.  I'm not arguing that my church accepts the OO as being in the Church, which appears to be what you see in my logic.  My point is that IF we consider the OO to be part of the Church, how do we also hold fast to seven Ecumenical Councils?  Why do we not believe that only the first three are truly ecumenical?  I'm not arguing that the OO are part of the Church and that there are only three councils we can call Ecumenical, nor am I arguing that there are seven Ecumenical Councils and that the OO put themselves outside the Church by rejecting the last four.  All I'm pointing out is that belief that the OO are in the Church and belief that there are seven Ecumenical Councils are, on the surface, contradictory beliefs.
Logged
Irish Hermit
Kibernetski Kaludjer
Warned
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Posts: 10,991


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us


« Reply #23 on: April 19, 2010, 03:25:42 AM »

Fr. Ambrose, I think Fr. Anastasios actually understands my point pretty well.  I'm not arguing that my church accepts the OO as being in the Church, which appears to be what you see in my logic.  My point is that IF we consider the OO to be part of the Church, how do we also hold fast to seven Ecumenical Councils? 


But where is the substance for the IF?  That is the crux of this rather surreal logic.  Where are the synodal statements from our Churches?  Certainly the Russian Orthodox Church and the Serbian Orthodox Church have not issued such statements..

What Orthodox Churches have declared that the Oriental Churches, or the Church of the East, are a part of the Orthodox Church, sister Churches with Constantinople and Moscow, Athens and Jerusalem?  Is this your personal belief?

If any Churches have so declared, how have they dealt with the question of the Councils?  Have they stated that four of them are optional now for Orthodox believers?
Logged
Irish Hermit
Kibernetski Kaludjer
Warned
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Posts: 10,991


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us


« Reply #24 on: April 19, 2010, 03:39:49 AM »


 nor am I arguing that there are seven Ecumenical Councils and that the OO put themselves outside the Church by rejecting the last four.  All I'm pointing out is that belief that the OO are in the Church and belief that there are seven Ecumenical Councils are, on the surface, contradictory beliefs.
Christ is Risen!

Are the Oriental Orthodox in the Church?  Would they want us in their Church?  One of their most eminent theologians has declared that we are in heresy, that our Christology is heretical.    How can heresy and truth exist side by side in one Church?

Let us look at a talk given at the third consultation between the Eastern Orthodox and Oriental Orthodox theologians in Geneva in 1970 by Fr. Paul Verghese and printed in the Greek Orthodox Theological Review in 1971 and published by the WCC in 1981.

This talk is printed as Does Chalcedon Divide or Unite?, under the name of Metropolitan Paulos Mar Gregorios, the name Fr. Paul Verghese took when he was consecrated a metropolitan. He was a theologian of the Syrian Orthodox Church of India and past President of the WCC and he states:

"Here, as earlier in the decree, the Tome of Leo is expressly affirmed. The decree actually calls the Tome "the pillar of the right faith." You can perhaps understand that all this is rather difficult for us to accept. For us Leo is still a heretic. It may be possible for us to refrain from condemning him by name, in the interests of restoring communion between us. But we cannot in good conscience accept the Tome of Leo as "the pillar of the right faith" or accept a council which made such a declaration.

"The council approves explicitly what I clearly regard as heresy in the Tome of Leo: "Each form does in communion with the other what pertains properly to it, the Word, namely doing that which pertains to the Word, and the flesh that which pertains to the flesh." If one rightly understands the hypostatic union, it is not possible to say that the flesh does something on its own, even if it is said to be in union with the Word. The flesh does not have its own hypostasis. It is the hypostasis of the Word which acts through the flesh. It is the same hypostasis of the Word which does the actions of the Word and of his own flesh. The argument of the horos [dogmatic definition] in this Sixth Council is basically unacceptable to us ."

Logged
PeterTheAleut
The Right Blowhard Peter the Furtive of Yetts O'Muckhart
Section Moderator
Protospatharios
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 31,441


EXTERMINATE!


« Reply #25 on: April 19, 2010, 03:46:40 AM »

But where is the substance for the IF?
Does there need to be any substance for IF logic?

To summarize, you can go ahead and miss the point if you want, Fr. Ambrose.  Just remember that you don't have to make this so darned difficult. Wink
« Last Edit: April 19, 2010, 03:52:40 AM by PeterTheAleut » Logged
Justin Kissel
Formerly Asteriktos
Protospatharios
****************
Online Online

Faith: BZZT
Posts: 29,235


« Reply #26 on: April 19, 2010, 03:49:46 AM »

Quote
Are the Oriental Orthodox in the Church?

Depends on what you mean by that. Oriental Orthodox Christians attend the local Antiochian parish here, and commune, confess, etc. Is that "in the Church"? You tell me. Smiley
Logged
Irish Hermit
Kibernetski Kaludjer
Warned
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Posts: 10,991


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us


« Reply #27 on: April 19, 2010, 03:53:09 AM »

Quote
Are the Oriental Orthodox in the Church?

Depends on what you mean by that. Oriental Orthodox Christians attend the local Antiochian parish here, and commune, confess, etc. Is that "in the Church"? You tell me. Smiley

Was this not forbidden by Metropolitan Philip in an encyclical he issued a few years back.  Has he revoked it?

-oOo-

However, in this country Antiochian clergy routinely commune Roman Catholics, Anglicans, Melkite Catholics, Maronite Catholics, Church of the East, and on occasion Presbyterians.

Does this mean we have to accept the Roman Catholics and Anglicans, etc., as being "in our Church"?
« Last Edit: April 19, 2010, 03:57:42 AM by Irish Hermit » Logged
PeterTheAleut
The Right Blowhard Peter the Furtive of Yetts O'Muckhart
Section Moderator
Protospatharios
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 31,441


EXTERMINATE!


« Reply #28 on: April 19, 2010, 04:06:00 AM »

Quote
Are the Oriental Orthodox in the Church?

Depends on what you mean by that. Oriental Orthodox Christians attend the local Antiochian parish here, and commune, confess, etc. Is that "in the Church"? You tell me. Smiley

Was this not forbidden by Metropolitan Philip in an encyclical he issued a few years back.  Has he revoked it?

-oOo-

However, in this country Antiochian clergy routinely commune Roman Catholics, Anglicans, Melkite Catholics, Maronite Catholics, Church of the East, and on occasion Presbyterians.

Does this mean we have to accept the Roman Catholics and Anglicans, etc., as being "in our Church"?
Give it up, Fr. Ambrose.  Your little fishy has turned bright red already, or else it just stole the worm off your hook. Wink
Logged
Irish Hermit
Kibernetski Kaludjer
Warned
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Posts: 10,991


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us


« Reply #29 on: April 19, 2010, 04:27:34 AM »

Quote
Are the Oriental Orthodox in the Church?

Depends on what you mean by that. Oriental Orthodox Christians attend the local Antiochian parish here, and commune, confess, etc. Is that "in the Church"? You tell me. Smiley

Was this not forbidden by Metropolitan Philip in an encyclical he issued a few years back.  Has he revoked it?

-oOo-

However, in this country Antiochian clergy routinely commune Roman Catholics, Anglicans, Melkite Catholics, Maronite Catholics, Church of the East, and on occasion Presbyterians.

Does this mean we have to accept the Roman Catholics and Anglicans, etc., as being "in our Church"?
Give it up, Fr. Ambrose.  Your little fishy has turned bright red already, or else it just stole the worm off your hook. Wink

Are not my questions as worthy as yours?   You write, if this and if that, and I write in the same vein.  I was also replying, and to the point, to Asteriktos' question as to whether the Antiochians' communing and confessing Oriental Christians places them "in the Church."   A rather odd situation in a way since if the reverse holds true and the Antiochians do not commune Oriental Christians does this put them "outside the Church"?  What do you think?
Logged
Justin Kissel
Formerly Asteriktos
Protospatharios
****************
Online Online

Faith: BZZT
Posts: 29,235


« Reply #30 on: April 19, 2010, 04:30:42 AM »

Quote
Are the Oriental Orthodox in the Church?

Depends on what you mean by that. Oriental Orthodox Christians attend the local Antiochian parish here, and commune, confess, etc. Is that "in the Church"? You tell me. Smiley

Was this not forbidden by Metropolitan Philip in an encyclical he issued a few years back.  Has he revoked it?

-oOo-

However, in this country Antiochian clergy routinely commune Roman Catholics, Anglicans, Melkite Catholics, Maronite Catholics, Church of the East, and on occasion Presbyterians.

Does this mean we have to accept the Roman Catholics and Anglicans, etc., as being "in our Church"?

Well I don't rightly know about the encyclical of Met. Philip, I'll ask the priest at the parish I mentioned about this the next time I see him. Regarding communing all sorts, I think you make a good point, except wasn't it Pat. Ignatius IV who originally authorized communing Oriental Orthodox Christians if they were not able to attend one of their own parishes because of distance? If it was indeed the Patriarch who put his stamp of approval on the practice, I think that makes a difference. But I will have to ask the Antiochian priest about this encyclical of Met. Philip that you mentioned (and/or ask the bishop the next time he visits).
« Last Edit: April 19, 2010, 04:31:31 AM by Asteriktos » Logged
Michał
['mi:hɑʊ]
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic (again!)
Jurisdiction: the Latin Church
Posts: 824


"Mother of God, Virgin, by God glorified Mary..."


« Reply #31 on: April 19, 2010, 09:02:02 AM »

The reason we've not had another ecumenical council, IMO, is because there is no empire and no emperor. . .

That makes a lot of sense because "Ecumenical" simply means "Imperial" and the Seven Councils were called by emperors to preserve the unity of their empire.
« Last Edit: April 19, 2010, 09:11:34 AM by Michał » Logged
Mickey
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Holy Orthodoxy
Posts: 1,309



« Reply #32 on: April 19, 2010, 09:44:20 AM »


However, in this country Antiochian clergy routinely commune Roman Catholics, Anglicans, Melkite Catholics, Maronite Catholics, Church of the East, and on occasion Presbyterians.

Ouch. Why do they commune these groups?
Logged
Mickey
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Holy Orthodoxy
Posts: 1,309



« Reply #33 on: April 19, 2010, 09:47:23 AM »

I'm not arguing that the OO are part of the Church and that there are only three councils we can call Ecumenical, nor am I arguing that there are seven Ecumenical Councils and that the OO put themselves outside the Church by rejecting the last four. 

But obviously your belief is that there are seven--correct?
Logged
podkarpatska
Warned
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: ACROD
Posts: 8,016


SS Cyril and Methodius Church, Mercer, PA


WWW
« Reply #34 on: April 19, 2010, 10:02:54 AM »

The reason we've not had another ecumenical council, IMO, is because there is no empire and no emperor. . .

That makes a lot of sense because "Ecumenical" simply means "Imperial" and the Seven Councils were called by emperors to preserve the unity of their empire.

Your statement about the meaning of the word 'ecumenical' is not correct. While some academic and church treatises on the Councils  may  refer to the "Ecumenical (Imperial) Councils", neither the definition nor the derivation of the English word 'ecumenical' equates to or connotes the word 'imperial'. I don't think that is common usage in either the Church or academia.

The Oxford Dictionary online defines and derives the words 'ecumenical' and 'imperial' as follows: 

"ecumenical
/eekyoomennik’l, ek-/

  • adjective 1 representing a number of different Christian Churches. 2 promoting or relating to unity among the world’s Christian Churches.

  — DERIVATIVES ecumenically adverb.

  — ORIGIN Greek oikoumenikos, from oikoumene ‘the inhabited earth’."

http://www.askoxford.com/results/?view=dict&freesearch=ecumenical&branch=13842570&textsearchtype=exact

"imperial

  • adjective 1 relating to an empire or an emperor. 2 characteristic of an emperor; majestic or magnificent. 3 relating to or denoting the system of non-metric weights and measures formerly used for all measures in the UK, and still used for some.

  — DERIVATIVES imperially adverb.

  — ORIGIN Latin imperialis, from imperium ‘command, empire."
'

http://www.askoxford.com/concise_oed/imperial?view=uk

The Mirriam-Webster dictionary does likewise. http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/ecumenical
Logged
Anastasios
Webdespota
Administrator
Merarches
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Greek Old Calendarist
Posts: 10,440


Metropolitan Chrysostomos of Florina

anastasios0513
WWW
« Reply #35 on: April 19, 2010, 10:17:11 AM »

It may not be the current usage in English, but I believe we should deliberately redefine it...the word is a translation of a Greek term which had a clear connotation to the Christian empire.  What gets "lost in translation" only benefits the Roman Catholics, and not us, because of this confusion about "having to have Rome to have a council."  We've had several pan-Orthodox councils since then, but in Greek they are not called ecumenical because (as I understand it) they were not called by the emperor).

I'm not always a partisan of redefining words, etc., as I think it can become an exercise in silliness (a la "we are the Real Roman Catholics" --> Well yes, we are, but who understands what that means?)  But with the term ecumenical council, we are discussing something that is a translation of a Greek term and we should have an understanding of what the word connotated in Greek.  Yes, ecumenical means the whole world, but to the Christians, that mean the empire, outside of which was just barbarianism....
Logged

Met. Demetrius's Enthronement

Disclaimer: Past posts reflect stages of my life before my baptism may not be accurate expositions of Orthodox teaching.

I served as an Orthodox priest from June 2008 to April 2013, before resigning for personal reasons
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: 37,124



« Reply #36 on: April 19, 2010, 10:40:35 AM »

Christos anesti!
It may not be the current usage in English, but I believe we should deliberately redefine it...the word is a translation of a Greek term which had a clear connotation to the Christian empire.  What gets "lost in translation" only benefits the Roman Catholics, and not us, because of this confusion about "having to have Rome to have a council."  We've had several pan-Orthodox councils since then, but in Greek they are not called ecumenical because (as I understand it) they were not called by the emperor).

I'm not always a partisan of redefining words, etc., as I think it can become an exercise in silliness (a la "we are the Real Roman Catholics" --> Well yes, we are, but who understands what that means?)  But with the term ecumenical council, we are discussing something that is a translation of a Greek term and we should have an understanding of what the word connotated in Greek.  Yes, ecumenical means the whole world, but to the Christians, that mean the empire, outside of which was just barbarianism....
a-HEM! Armenia was outside the empire, and the first Christian kingdom.

retranslating "Ecumenical" as "Imperial" would give validation to the Caesaropapism nonsense.  Render unto God, that which is God's.  The emperor's only role as far as the Councils are concerned is making it possible for the whole of the Church to meet and disseminate Her teaching.
« Last Edit: April 19, 2010, 10:42:43 AM 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
Anastasios
Webdespota
Administrator
Merarches
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Greek Old Calendarist
Posts: 10,440


Metropolitan Chrysostomos of Florina

anastasios0513
WWW
« Reply #37 on: April 19, 2010, 10:55:58 AM »

Alithos Anesti!

Armenian, Syriac, and other bishops were invited and attended various of the three first councils, which were called by an emperor, held in the empire, and became imperial law after their promulgation by the emperor.  That does not mean their countries, nations, people, and Orthodox traditions were less, but simply that the Christian emperor played the central role in convoking all these councils.  A reason why the supporters of Chalcedon were called Melkites (king's men) (I am curious how the current Melkites won that title after the split in 1724?)

Recognizing that the term ecumenical council meant imperial has nothing to do with Ceaseropapism, which never existed.  I am not arguing that the Church would have been impotent had it had no emperor, nor am I arguing that the Church cannot have authoritative councils without an emperor now.  What I am arguing is that ecumenical councils meant imperial councils, which is why there were only 7 (9) of them.  There have been several Pan-Orthodox since.

The reason I think this limit is important is to argue against the Roman Catholic notion that we Orthodox are "unable" to call new ecumenical councils since we lack communion with "The" Successor of St Peter.  Restoring the original meaning of the word ecumenical in reference to councils will do that, while freeing us to have further councils be unrelated to any political system. It's actually a win-win situation.
Logged

Met. Demetrius's Enthronement

Disclaimer: Past posts reflect stages of my life before my baptism may not be accurate expositions of Orthodox teaching.

I served as an Orthodox priest from June 2008 to April 2013, before resigning for personal reasons
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: 37,124



« Reply #38 on: April 19, 2010, 11:28:34 AM »

almasiiHu qaam!
Alithos Anesti!

Armenian, Syriac, and other bishops were invited and attended various of the three first councils, which were called by an emperor, held in the empire, and became imperial law after their promulgation by the emperor.  That does not mean their countries, nations, people, and Orthodox traditions were less, but simply that the Christian emperor played the central role in convoking all these councils.  A reason why the supporters of Chalcedon were called Melkites (king's men) (I am curious how the current Melkites won that title after the split in 1724?)

They went to the Vatican, who used the term (it has fallen into disuse for the most part in Arabic, perhaps in part because the colloquial pronunciations confuse it with "Maliki," a Muslim denomination).



Quote
Recognizing that the term ecumenical council meant imperial has nothing to do with Ceaseropapism, which never existed.  I am not arguing that the Church would have been impotent had it had no emperor, nor am I arguing that the Church cannot have authoritative councils without an emperor now.  What I am arguing is that ecumenical councils meant imperial councils, which is why there were only 7 (9) of them.  There have been several Pan-Orthodox since.

The reason I think this limit is important is to argue against the Roman Catholic notion that we Orthodox are "unable" to call new ecumenical councils since we lack communion with "The" Successor of St Peter.  Restoring the original meaning of the word ecumenical in reference to councils will do that, while freeing us to have further councils be unrelated to any political system.
I'm not sure how relinking "Ecumenical" with "Imperial" would do that. Then there's the long running problem with the Turk over Constantinople's title.
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
podkarpatska
Warned
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: ACROD
Posts: 8,016


SS Cyril and Methodius Church, Mercer, PA


WWW
« Reply #39 on: April 19, 2010, 12:09:21 PM »

ISTM, that to us modern English speakers, the term 'imperial' conjures up a negative image - not one consistent with a living Church that must operate in the times in which we live. Since I can not presume to foresee the future of humanity, I won't state that there will 'never' be a new Christian empire as there once was, but there is just 'something' about empires and imperial power that sticks in my 'craw' so to speak.  I  prefer the term 'ecumenical'.[/color]
« Last Edit: April 19, 2010, 12:10:16 PM by podkarpatska » Logged
Anastasios
Webdespota
Administrator
Merarches
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Greek Old Calendarist
Posts: 10,440


Metropolitan Chrysostomos of Florina

anastasios0513
WWW
« Reply #40 on: April 19, 2010, 12:17:10 PM »

Disclaimer: My post is in response to the argument that a membership roster a certain deliminator as to who is "in" the Church, a proposition I doubt, given some ambiguity regarding the Non-Chalcedonians amongst the various would-be participants in said upcoming Great Council. My goal is not to incite a debate on the issue of Chalcedon itself, since that is proper to the private forum, but I am rather merely citing material from statements in order to demonstrate why I believe it is reasonable to doubt the proposition at hand.

I have no interest in fostering another EO vs OO debate, as there are plenty in the private forum.

Fr A.



Do you have any statements from the Holy Synod of the Russian Orthodox Church which substantiate the claim that a "Two Family" theory is advocated by my Church?  This is the first time I have heard of it.

Dear Father,

Christ is Risen!

I deliberately said "Your Communion" instead of "Your Church" for fear you would interpret my statement as a reference to your Synod instead of all of your communion (i.e. all of the patriarchates that are in communion with each other).  I want to be as specific and limited in my words as possible to avoid any misrepresentation.

Here are two joint agreements of the Commission, which included bishops, priests, and theologians from both communions (Eastern and Oriental):

http://www.orthodoxunity.org/state01.php
http://www.orthodoxunity.org/state02.php

Your Synod (the MP)  in particular in 1994 did not accept the Second Joint Agreement between Eastern and Oriental Orthodox Churches as "a definitive text."  It also says the issue should be taken up by the whole Church. I think that was good:
http://www.orthodoxunity.org/state11.php

But 3 years later, your Synod (the MP) used the two families language:

http://www.orthodoxunity.org/state12.php
Quote
"The Statement" should not be regarded as a final document sufficient for the restoration of full communion between the Orthodox Church and the Oriental Orthodox Churches as it contains ambiguities in some Christological formulations. To express hope in this regard that Christological formulations should be clarified in the course of studying the questions pertaining to the restoration of church communion between the two families of Churches of the Orthodox tradition of the Orthodox Churches.

I am happy they still are not saying it is definitive, but they use the two families language, which I think is problematic. By the way, I am not sure why paragraphs 2 and 3 are excised. Perhaps they contain language unfavorable to the dialogue and the editor of the site in question was concerned. Or perhaps that text was excised for some reason from the officially released document? At any rate, if you or anyone else has the original, that would be nice to have so we can be sure we are not missing anything critical.

Regardless of what your Synod has or has not approved, large numbers of clergy and patriarchs seem to have given recognition to them as being part of the Church somehow. This was explicitly taught at St Vladimir's Seminary (OCA) where I studied.  There was debate on how to reconcile the issue of councils and saints, which you can see unfold over the years in the St Vladimir's Theological journal (which is unfortunately difficult to obtain outside of large libraries). But it was taken for granted that they were Orthodox by most people there.

The patriarchs of Alexandria and Antioch have approved 2 family language:
http://www.orthodoxunity.org/state07.php

A further two family language document from Alexandria:
http://www.orthodoxunity.org/state05.php

Basically my argument is that we have officially-approved commissions consisting of even bishops, meeting and signing documents that say the two Churches are both Orthodox, and the split is all due to a misunderstanding.  We have examples of patriarchs using the same language, even when it is expressed with reservation.  We have a de facto recognition of the Orthodoxy of these people by every New Calendar parish I've ever been in in the USA (Greek, Antiochian, OCA) where priests have told me they commune the Non Chalcedonians since they are Orthodox.  That is a bit different than say Antiochians communing Catholics in your country, which while wrong, they are not saying "we are communing them because they are Orthodox."  I am limiting myself to a specific point, a specific argument, so I don't want to go off tangent here.

I also can offer you my own personal witness that in September 2004 I was at the 40th anniversary liturgy of the priestly ordination of Metropolitan Herman, and there was a Non-Chalcedonian Armenian bishop there (along with an Eastern Rite Catholic and a Roman Catholic bishop) standing near the iconostasis on the right, on a raised area, which they had kind of cordoned off for important guests, and I witnessed priests of your communion coming to the Non-Chalcedonian bishop (some also went to the Catholic ones) and took blessings from them. Hand cupped, extended, bishop's hand put in priest's hand, priest kisses bishop's hand.  While their own bishop was 15 feet away in the altar. I found that problematic.

I have never seen a full liturgical concelebration between the two Churches (although there appear to be some Vespers services on youtube that show priests in Epitrachilia from both churches together), so I do not state there is a physical union yet, but I believe that this is kind of like the precursor to Monotheltism, where everything is excused as  "personal statements" until after the deal is done.  And even the official statements of the MP, while more cautious, are already giving some ground.  Some of the other patriarchs have already accepted it.



Quote
Your refer to Peter's point but I am not sure really what point Peter wishes to make.   It would be a surprise to me if his Church accepted the non-Chalcedonian Churches as the Church.  Is there any statement from the OCA Synod on this matter?

I am sure that none of the Churches such as the Russian, the Greek, the Serbian, the Bulgarian, Jerusalem, the OCA would accept the non-Chalcedonian Christians as in the same Church as them.  One group demands 7 Ecumenical Councils and the other denies 4 of them.     We are frequently called the Church of the Seven Councils, not of the Three Councils.  

I wouldn't be so sure.

Quote
I see you are referring to our upcoming Council as the 10th.   I am not sure why.  Our bishops and theologians refer to it as the 8th (assuming it is even eventually accepted as an Ecumenical Council.)

Just as an aside  ~ is your Greek Orthodox Church acknowledging Nine Ecumenical Councils?  Has that been officially stated by your Synod?

It would seemingly have to be at least the 9th, because in the Encyclical of the Eastern Patriarchs of 1848, they referred to the St Sophia Council of 879-880 as the 8th Ecumenical:

http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/mod/1848orthodoxencyclical.html
Quote
xi. 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.

The 9th council would be the Hesychast Councils of the 14th century, which teachings were included in the liturgical tradition of the church (2nd Sunday of Lent).

Fr John Romanides, Fr George Metallinos, Metropolitan Hierotheos of Nafpaktos, among others, pushed in the last century to cease referring to only 7 and to refer to 9.  A fuller discussion is found here under the section 7 and 9:

http://orthodoxwiki.org/Ecumenical_Councils

In this article posted on our own website, by a Roman Catholic scholar, you can see some historical information about the numbering of councils in both east and west:
http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=22:which-councils-are-ecumenical&catid=14:articles&Itemid=2

Of interest for historical reasons is this passage, even if I don't totally buy the reasons Dvornik gives subsequently:

Quote
The treatise on synods composed by Euthymius was reedited in the fourteenth century by Neilos Diasorenos, metropolitan of Rhodes (1357).2 Neilos was an ardent supporter of the Patriarch Philotheus and of Gregory Palamas, the protagonists of the hesychast movement.3 The monk Barlaam, the adversary of their doctrine on the living light of Mount Tabor which the mystics were supposed to see when reaching the highest degree of their ascetic practice, was condemned by a synod convoked by the Patriarch John XIV Aprenos in 1341. This synod marked the victory of the hesychasts and was regarded as an important milestone by all adherents of this movement. It is not surprising that they placed it alongside the Seven Ecumenical Councils, the basis of the orthodox faith.

Neilos therefore adapted the treatise of Euthymius to the needs of the fourteenth century by adding to the seven councils that of Photius (879-880) as the Eighth Ecumenical, and the synod of 1341 as the Ninth, giving also an extract from the Acts of this synod. He was not alone in this practice. In the Greek Manuscript 968 (fols. 392-395) in the National Library of Paris, I found an anonymous treatise on councils, also based on Euthymius’ tractate, in which the Photian Council is added to the seven ecumenicals as the Eighth, and that of 1341 as the Ninth. However, the author concedes ecumenical character only to the first seven synods. Another version of Euthymius’ treatise is preserved in the Manuscript Historicus Graecus 34 in the National Library of Vienna (fols. 359 ff.).4 These two treatises must have been composed soon after 1341 by anonymous zealots propagating the hesychast doctrine. I would be tempted to date them before the writings of Neilos, because they are not as emphatic concerning the ecumenicity of the two last councils as was the Archbishop of Rhodes who, because of his zeal for hesychasm, was promoted by the Patriarch Philotheos Kokkinos to an exarchos in 1366. He lost this distinction under the Patriarch Makarios (1376-1379) who was an adversary of the hesychasts.

Quote
Of course not.  I really have no "personal" belief.   We must accept not our "personal" belief but the teaching of our Church.  If there is anybody holding a "Two  Families" theory of Orthodoxy it is they who are holding a"personal" belief.

That is the problem some people have though; what is the official (Eastern) Orthodox belief? There seems to be some contradiction even on the most official level. I think that is what PeterTheAleut was getting at. Maybe this upcoming Great Council can sort that out--but then, it still will not prove that the membership roster is coterminous with who is "in" the Church of Christ, given that clearly there are many bishops -- even patriarchs -- who believe the Non Chalcedonians are.

In Christ,

Fr Anastasios
« Last Edit: April 19, 2010, 12:21:24 PM by Fr. Anastasios » Logged

Met. Demetrius's Enthronement

Disclaimer: Past posts reflect stages of my life before my baptism may not be accurate expositions of Orthodox teaching.

I served as an Orthodox priest from June 2008 to April 2013, before resigning for personal reasons
Anastasios
Webdespota
Administrator
Merarches
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Greek Old Calendarist
Posts: 10,440


Metropolitan Chrysostomos of Florina

anastasios0513
WWW
« Reply #41 on: April 19, 2010, 12:19:22 PM »

ISTM, that to us modern English speakers, the term 'imperial' conjures up a negative image - not one consistent with a living Church that must operate in the times in which we live. Since I can not presume to foresee the future of humanity, I won't state that there will 'never' be a new Christian empire as there once was, but there is just 'something' about empires and imperial power that sticks in my 'craw' so to speak.  I  prefer the term 'ecumenical'.[/color]

Granted, but that term evokes images of the papal empire in my mind Smiley

My actual preference would be to speak of a Universal Council and specify that some of those were imperial and some "Pan-Orthodox." But I doubt that my idea will catch on.
Logged

Met. Demetrius's Enthronement

Disclaimer: Past posts reflect stages of my life before my baptism may not be accurate expositions of Orthodox teaching.

I served as an Orthodox priest from June 2008 to April 2013, before resigning for personal reasons
podkarpatska
Warned
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: ACROD
Posts: 8,016


SS Cyril and Methodius Church, Mercer, PA


WWW
« Reply #42 on: April 19, 2010, 12:33:44 PM »

ISTM, that to us modern English speakers, the term 'imperial' conjures up a negative image - not one consistent with a living Church that must operate in the times in which we live. Since I can not presume to foresee the future of humanity, I won't state that there will 'never' be a new Christian empire as there once was, but there is just 'something' about empires and imperial power that sticks in my 'craw' so to speak.  I  prefer the term 'ecumenical'.[/color]

Granted, but that term evokes images of the papal empire in my mind Smiley

My actual preference would be to speak of a Universal Council and specify that some of those were imperial and some "Pan-Orthodox." But I doubt that my idea will catch on.

I like your idea for us English speakers. BTW the image in my mind with the empire is the Darth Vader theme as the opposing team is introduced at Yankee Stadium!  Smiley
Logged
militantsparrow
Laurence
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Antiochian Orthodox Christian Archdiocese of North America
Posts: 614


militantsparrow
« Reply #43 on: April 19, 2010, 01:50:15 PM »

It was my understanding that the council's themselves referenced that the councils were called by the emperor and the Pope. I am at work and can't provide supporting documentation right now, but I will later.

Rome is often mentioned as the "supreme court" or "final appeal" for decisions on matters which cannot be settled by the bishops elsewhere.

I will accept the fact that the Pope was the protos. I will ignore discussion (for now) and why/how/etc. that changed, but the document I referenced indicates that a council must also have the approval of the Eastern churches. What I want to know is, is that true? Can it be supported by council documents?

If it can be proved, then Rome has never had an ecumenical council since the split.

That's all I'm asking.

Thanks.
Logged

"Yeah, the sparrow hath found an house..." -Psalm 84:3
Fr. George
formerly "Cleveland"
Administrator
Stratopedarches
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox (Catholic) Christian
Jurisdiction: GOA - Metropolis of Pittsburgh
Posts: 19,907


May the Lord bless you and keep you always!


« Reply #44 on: April 19, 2010, 01:58:15 PM »

If it can be proved, then Rome has never had an ecumenical council since the split.

I don't think your conclusion follows, because you're missing a fundamental step:  Since the split, each side sees the other as having completely left the Church - and those outside the Church cannot prevent the Church from having an Ecumenical Council.  Rome will claim that she has had Ecumenical Councils, and will point out that she has Bishops/Archbishops/Cardinals/Patriarchs in each of the other Eastern Sees that have attended these councils.  The Orthodox will also claim that we have had Ecumenical Councils, and we can continue to do so, because Rome has left the Church but yet the Church is still whole, not dependent on one human personality or see.
« Last Edit: April 19, 2010, 01:58:38 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.
Fr. George
formerly "Cleveland"
Administrator
Stratopedarches
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox (Catholic) Christian
Jurisdiction: GOA - Metropolis of Pittsburgh
Posts: 19,907


May the Lord bless you and keep you always!


« Reply #45 on: April 19, 2010, 02:45:13 PM »

Unless of course the Eastern Bishops ceased to be members of the Catholic Church, in which case they would not be necessary anymore. 

I don't even think this is an issue for you folks: you've got bishops in each of the Eastern Ancient cities that are in your communion.
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.
Papist
Patriarch of Pontification
Toumarches
************
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Byzantine
Posts: 12,130


Truth, Justice, and the American way!


« Reply #46 on: April 19, 2010, 02:48:28 PM »

Unless of course the Eastern Bishops ceased to be members of the Catholic Church, in which case they would not be necessary anymore. 

I don't even think this is an issue for you folks: you've got bishops in each of the Eastern Ancient cities that are in your communion.
That are in our communion.
Logged

Note Papist's influence from the tyrannical monarchism of traditional papism .
PeterTheAleut
The Right Blowhard Peter the Furtive of Yetts O'Muckhart
Section Moderator
Protospatharios
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 31,441


EXTERMINATE!


« Reply #47 on: April 19, 2010, 03:07:44 PM »

Quote
Are the Oriental Orthodox in the Church?

Depends on what you mean by that. Oriental Orthodox Christians attend the local Antiochian parish here, and commune, confess, etc. Is that "in the Church"? You tell me. Smiley

Was this not forbidden by Metropolitan Philip in an encyclical he issued a few years back.  Has he revoked it?

-oOo-

However, in this country Antiochian clergy routinely commune Roman Catholics, Anglicans, Melkite Catholics, Maronite Catholics, Church of the East, and on occasion Presbyterians.

Does this mean we have to accept the Roman Catholics and Anglicans, etc., as being "in our Church"?
Give it up, Fr. Ambrose.  Your little fishy has turned bright red already, or else it just stole the worm off your hook. Wink

Are not my questions as worthy as yours?   You write, if this and if that, and I write in the same vein.  I was also replying, and to the point, to Asteriktos' question as to whether the Antiochians' communing and confessing Oriental Christians places them "in the Church."   A rather odd situation in a way since if the reverse holds true and the Antiochians do not commune Oriental Christians does this put them "outside the Church"?  What do you think?
You know that herring you just ate, Fr. Ambrose...


It's red.
Logged
PeterTheAleut
The Right Blowhard Peter the Furtive of Yetts O'Muckhart
Section Moderator
Protospatharios
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 31,441


EXTERMINATE!


« Reply #48 on: April 19, 2010, 03:08:57 PM »

I'm not arguing that the OO are part of the Church and that there are only three councils we can call Ecumenical, nor am I arguing that there are seven Ecumenical Councils and that the OO put themselves outside the Church by rejecting the last four. 

But obviously your belief is that there are seven--correct?
For the sake of my participation in this discussion, what does it matter?
Logged
Mickey
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Holy Orthodoxy
Posts: 1,309



« Reply #49 on: April 19, 2010, 03:11:48 PM »

For the sake of my participation in this discussion, what does it matter?

No need to get testy--just asking.  You do not have to answer.  Wink
Logged
PeterTheAleut
The Right Blowhard Peter the Furtive of Yetts O'Muckhart
Section Moderator
Protospatharios
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 31,441


EXTERMINATE!


« Reply #50 on: April 19, 2010, 03:16:27 PM »

For the sake of my participation in this discussion, what does it matter?

No need to get testy--just asking.  You do not have to answer.  Wink
Not getting testy...  Just pointing out that whether or not I personally believe that there are seven ecumenical councils and not three is irrelevant to the logic I brought to this discussion.
Logged
Mickey
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Holy Orthodoxy
Posts: 1,309



« Reply #51 on: April 19, 2010, 03:30:23 PM »

Not getting testy...  Just pointing out that whether or not I personally believe that there are seven ecumenical councils and not three is irrelevant to the logic I brought to this discussion.

On the contrary...I think it is quite relevant.  When participating in discussion/debate forums, sides are usually taken and then defended.  And so you would believe that there are either seven great councils....or three....or maybe even 20 +  like the West....and then defend, explain and/or give your logic for that position.

But of course you can also choose to not reveal your stance and play some type of devil's advocate.

Great to live in America...eh?
Logged
PeterTheAleut
The Right Blowhard Peter the Furtive of Yetts O'Muckhart
Section Moderator
Protospatharios
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 31,441


EXTERMINATE!


« Reply #52 on: April 19, 2010, 05:14:36 PM »

Not getting testy...  Just pointing out that whether or not I personally believe that there are seven ecumenical councils and not three is irrelevant to the logic I brought to this discussion.

On the contrary...I think it is quite relevant.  When participating in discussion/debate forums, sides are usually taken and then defended.  And so you would believe that there are either seven great councils....or three....or maybe even 20 +  like the West....and then defend, explain and/or give your logic for that position.
Would you be so kind as to do me a favor, please?  Let me decide why I bring a logical proposition to a discussion and whether someone else's questioning bears any relevance to the point I'm trying to make. Wink
Logged
militantsparrow
Laurence
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Antiochian Orthodox Christian Archdiocese of North America
Posts: 614


militantsparrow
« Reply #53 on: April 19, 2010, 08:44:59 PM »

If it can be proved, then Rome has never had an ecumenical council since the split.

I don't think your conclusion follows, because you're missing a fundamental step:  Since the split, each side sees the other as having completely left the Church - and those outside the Church cannot prevent the Church from having an Ecumenical Council.  Rome will claim that she has had Ecumenical Councils, and will point out that she has Bishops/Archbishops/Cardinals/Patriarchs in each of the other Eastern Sees that have attended these councils.  The Orthodox will also claim that we have had Ecumenical Councils, and we can continue to do so, because Rome has left the Church but yet the Church is still whole, not dependent on one human personality or see.

Thank you, Father. That is a good point.
Logged

"Yeah, the sparrow hath found an house..." -Psalm 84:3
militantsparrow
Laurence
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Antiochian Orthodox Christian Archdiocese of North America
Posts: 614


militantsparrow
« Reply #54 on: April 19, 2010, 08:47:04 PM »

Unless of course the Eastern Bishops ceased to be members of the Catholic Church, in which case they would not be necessary anymore. 

I don't even think this is an issue for you folks: you've got bishops in each of the Eastern Ancient cities that are in your communion.

Has this always been the case--at least since our (Rome's) 8th ecumenical council?
Logged

"Yeah, the sparrow hath found an house..." -Psalm 84:3
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: 37,124



« Reply #55 on: April 19, 2010, 10:55:01 PM »

Unless of course the Eastern Bishops ceased to be members of the Catholic Church, in which case they would not be necessary anymore.  

I don't even think this is an issue for you folks: you've got bishops in each of the Eastern Ancient cities that are in your communion.

Has this always been the case--at least since our (Rome's) 8th ecumenical council?
No. Lateran I-III had none.
« Last Edit: April 19, 2010, 10:59:43 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
militantsparrow
Laurence
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Antiochian Orthodox Christian Archdiocese of North America
Posts: 614


militantsparrow
« Reply #56 on: April 20, 2010, 07:29:22 AM »

Is the council of Jerusalem depicted in Acts considered an ecumenical council by the Orthodox?
Logged

"Yeah, the sparrow hath found an house..." -Psalm 84:3
Fr. George
formerly "Cleveland"
Administrator
Stratopedarches
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox (Catholic) Christian
Jurisdiction: GOA - Metropolis of Pittsburgh
Posts: 19,907


May the Lord bless you and keep you always!


« Reply #57 on: April 20, 2010, 08:02:08 AM »

Is the council of Jerusalem depicted in Acts considered an ecumenical council by the Orthodox?

No - we call it the Apostolic Council, which is a term that is IMO more reverent than Ecumenical.
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: 37,124



« Reply #58 on: April 20, 2010, 10:40:33 AM »

Is the council of Jerusalem depicted in Acts considered an ecumenical council by the Orthodox?

No - we call it the Apostolic Council, which is a term that is IMO more reverent than Ecumenical.
Sort of the template of what the Apostles' successors did in Ecumenical Council.
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
militantsparrow
Laurence
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Antiochian Orthodox Christian Archdiocese of North America
Posts: 614


militantsparrow
« Reply #59 on: April 20, 2010, 11:21:31 AM »

Is the council of Jerusalem depicted in Acts considered an ecumenical council by the Orthodox?

No - we call it the Apostolic Council, which is a term that is IMO more reverent than Ecumenical.
Sort of the template of what the Apostles' successors did in Ecumenical Council.

But obviously without the cooperation with the Emperor. I would think this implies that the emperor isn't needed for a council to be ecumenical/apostolic. All that's really necessary is acceptance by the apostolic churches and their bishops. But how many and which churches and bishops is obviously flexible or at least debatable.
Logged

"Yeah, the sparrow hath found an house..." -Psalm 84:3
Fr. George
formerly "Cleveland"
Administrator
Stratopedarches
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox (Catholic) Christian
Jurisdiction: GOA - Metropolis of Pittsburgh
Posts: 19,907


May the Lord bless you and keep you always!


« Reply #60 on: April 20, 2010, 12:46:30 PM »

Is the council of Jerusalem depicted in Acts considered an ecumenical council by the Orthodox?
No - we call it the Apostolic Council, which is a term that is IMO more reverent than Ecumenical.
Sort of the template of what the Apostles' successors did in Ecumenical Council.
But obviously without the cooperation with the Emperor. I would think this implies that the emperor isn't needed for a council to be ecumenical/apostolic.

Well, yes, but then again it had what none of the Ecumenical Councils had: a discussion dominated by people who heard Christ's teachings from His lips, who held His hands, and who had their feet washed by Him in His humility.  Further councils followed their example of piety, humility, and organization, but certainly the charism of that council was different (not less or more, just different) than the subsequent Ecumenical Councils.
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.
Papist
Patriarch of Pontification
Toumarches
************
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Byzantine
Posts: 12,130


Truth, Justice, and the American way!


« Reply #61 on: April 20, 2010, 12:47:53 PM »

Is the council of Jerusalem depicted in Acts considered an ecumenical council by the Orthodox?
No - we call it the Apostolic Council, which is a term that is IMO more reverent than Ecumenical.
Sort of the template of what the Apostles' successors did in Ecumenical Council.
But obviously without the cooperation with the Emperor. I would think this implies that the emperor isn't needed for a council to be ecumenical/apostolic.

Well, yes, but then again it had what none of the Ecumenical Councils had: a discussion dominated by people who heard Christ's teachings from His lips, who held His hands, and who had their feet washed by Him in His humility.  Further councils followed their example of piety, humility, and organization, but certainly the charism of that council was different (not less or more, just different) than the subsequent Ecumenical Councils.
No emperor, no councils?
Logged

Note Papist's influence from the tyrannical monarchism of traditional papism .
militantsparrow
Laurence
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Antiochian Orthodox Christian Archdiocese of North America
Posts: 614


militantsparrow
« Reply #62 on: April 20, 2010, 08:22:51 PM »

How do Orthodox Christians know what is or is not an Ecumenical/Pan-Orthodox/Apostolic council? Are there certain criteria that must be in place? Is it just majority acceptance? Full acceptance?
Logged

"Yeah, the sparrow hath found an house..." -Psalm 84:3
Mickey
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Holy Orthodoxy
Posts: 1,309



« Reply #63 on: April 22, 2010, 10:40:41 AM »

Would you be so kind as to do me a favor, please?  Let me decide why I bring a logical proposition to a discussion and whether someone else's questioning bears any relevance to the point I'm trying to make. Wink
Favor granted.  Wink
Logged
zoarthegleaner
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: ROCOR
Posts: 398



« Reply #64 on: April 22, 2010, 10:55:46 AM »

Is there some ecumenical council watch I don't know about searching for signs to forecast the future?

john
Logged

Courteous is my name,
and I have always aimed to live up to it.
Grace is also my name,
but when things go wrong
its Courteous whom I blame;
but its Grace who sees me through it.
Fr. George
formerly "Cleveland"
Administrator
Stratopedarches
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox (Catholic) Christian
Jurisdiction: GOA - Metropolis of Pittsburgh
Posts: 19,907


May the Lord bless you and keep you always!


« Reply #65 on: April 22, 2010, 10:56:36 AM »

But obviously without the cooperation with the Emperor. I would think this implies that the emperor isn't needed for a council to be ecumenical/apostolic.
Well, yes, but then again it had what none of the Ecumenical Councils had: a discussion dominated by people who heard Christ's teachings from His lips, who held His hands, and who had their feet washed by Him in His humility.  Further councils followed their example of piety, humility, and organization, but certainly the charism of that council was different (not less or more, just different) than the subsequent Ecumenical Councils.
No emperor, no councils?

We've had good and universally applicable councils without him - so yes, we can have councils and Ecumenical Councils without the Emperor, even if we haven't tried to yet.  I was only attempting to steer away from the assumption, "the Apostolic Council didn't have an emperor, so the Emperor wasn't a critical piece of the Ecumenical Councils" by showing that we cannot use the Apostolic Council as a 1:1 example for the Ecumenical Ones since there was certainly a unique charism to it.  All subsequent councils, Ecumenical or otherwise, used the model of the Apostolic Council and tried to emulate its spirit (some more successfully than others).
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.
Fr. George
formerly "Cleveland"
Administrator
Stratopedarches
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox (Catholic) Christian
Jurisdiction: GOA - Metropolis of Pittsburgh
Posts: 19,907


May the Lord bless you and keep you always!


« Reply #66 on: April 22, 2010, 11:00:25 AM »

How do Orthodox Christians know what is or is not an Ecumenical/Pan-Orthodox/Apostolic council? Are there certain criteria that must be in place? Is it just majority acceptance? Full acceptance? 

There was only one "Apostolic Council."

Re: Ecumenical - Much of it has come from the Ecumenical Councils themselves.  Ecumenical Councils 2-7 ratified the acts and canons of the preceding councils.

Re: Pan-Orthodox - Well, this appellation is merely descriptive of the representation/attendance, not necessarily denoting any special charism of the council. As with any council, it is up to the synod of that particular autocephalous Church to ratify the decisions for its local Church.  In this context, a nice thing about the Ecumenical Councils is that, generally, all the bishops of the autocephalous synods were already in attendance.
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.
zoarthegleaner
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: ROCOR
Posts: 398



« Reply #67 on: April 22, 2010, 11:11:32 AM »

The Ecumenical Councils were called to establish peace both inside the Church and outside in the World, though in fact the Church is outside the world in the world bringing Peace unto the world so that Good Will towards all men might encourage some or many within the world to leave the world so as to enter outside of the world into the Church.

It was so with the Apostolic Council also,  The Apostles where concerned for the Peace within the Church which must exist to bring Peace into the world, and the Apostles were very attune to the need for Peace so that the Gospel could be carried and planted everywhere.  When the Jewish synogogue began persecuting the Church was during a time when there was no govenor over Jerusalem, if I recall my history lesson correctly.


john
Logged

Courteous is my name,
and I have always aimed to live up to it.
Grace is also my name,
but when things go wrong
its Courteous whom I blame;
but its Grace who sees me through it.
militantsparrow
Laurence
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Antiochian Orthodox Christian Archdiocese of North America
Posts: 614


militantsparrow
« Reply #68 on: April 22, 2010, 07:02:19 PM »

Re: Pan-Orthodox - Well, this appellation is merely descriptive of the representation/attendance, not necessarily denoting any special charism of the council. As with any council, it is up to the synod of that particular autocephalous Church to ratify the decisions for its local Church.  In this context, a nice thing about the Ecumenical Councils is that, generally, all the bishops of the autocephalous synods were already in attendance.

So a pan-Orthodox council doesn't necessarily include all autocephalous Churches and doesn't necessarily have any universal authority or binding? So that would mean a pan-Orthodox council is nothing like an ecumenical council--am I correct?
Logged

"Yeah, the sparrow hath found an house..." -Psalm 84:3
militantsparrow
Laurence
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Antiochian Orthodox Christian Archdiocese of North America
Posts: 614


militantsparrow
« Reply #69 on: April 28, 2010, 08:07:49 PM »

I looked over the Ravenna document and the documents from Nicaea II, but neither seemed to express these points as succinctly. Does anyone know where I can find the cannons which support the two bolded points above--especially the necessity for the patriarchs of the East to be in agreement.

I found the answer. It is a reference to Apostolic Cannon #34.
Logged

"Yeah, the sparrow hath found an house..." -Psalm 84:3
Fr. George
formerly "Cleveland"
Administrator
Stratopedarches
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox (Catholic) Christian
Jurisdiction: GOA - Metropolis of Pittsburgh
Posts: 19,907


May the Lord bless you and keep you always!


« Reply #70 on: April 28, 2010, 09:13:00 PM »

So a pan-Orthodox council doesn't necessarily include all autocephalous Churches

Yes, it generally indicates that all autocephalous Churches had representation present.

and doesn't necessarily have any universal authority or binding?

Technically, the only reasons why Ecumenical councils were binding were: a) the Emperor usually codified the decisions into the Civil Law Code, and b) most Bishops were generally there anyway, rendering any necessity for individual synodal votes moot.

So that would mean a pan-Orthodox council is nothing like an ecumenical council--am I correct?

The Pan-Orthodox synods have been a lot like the Ecumenical Councils, minus the extremely and popularly contentious heresies (generally), the sheer volume of hierarchs, and the support/legislation of an Emperor.
« Last Edit: April 28, 2010, 09:13:22 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.
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: 37,124



« Reply #71 on: April 28, 2010, 11:17:03 PM »

So a pan-Orthodox council doesn't necessarily include all autocephalous Churches

Yes, it generally indicates that all autocephalous Churches had representation present.

That wouldn't distinguish a pan-Orthodox council from an Ecumenical one.

and doesn't necessarily have any universal authority or binding?

Technically, the only reasons why Ecumenical councils were binding were: a) the Emperor usually codified the decisions into the Civil Law Code,

Not relevant at all as to their authority in the Church as whole Christian kingdoms (starting with Armenia, the first one) were not under the Emperor for the first 2 at least, and his authority didn't extend much beyond the patriarchate of Constantinople for the seventh.  The Pan-Orthodox Constantinople IV and V (if you don't see them as Ecumenical) similarly were supported by the Emperor in the rest of his realm.  Heretical Emperors also codified their heresy into the Civil Law.


Quote
and b) most Bishops were generally there anyway, rendering any necessity for individual synodal votes moot.

The largest Council was Chalcedon, around 350 at best 10% of all bishops.



So that would mean a pan-Orthodox council is nothing like an ecumenical council--am I correct?

The Pan-Orthodox synods have been a lot like the Ecumenical Councils, minus the extremely and popularly contentious heresies (generally), the sheer volume of hierarchs, and the support/legislation of an Emperor.
Constantinople IV had 383 bishops and was supported by the Emperor (who had caused the problems in the first place).  It's when filioque first came on the radar.

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
militantsparrow
Laurence
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Antiochian Orthodox Christian Archdiocese of North America
Posts: 614


militantsparrow
« Reply #72 on: April 29, 2010, 11:00:09 PM »

ialmisry and Fr. George,
I'm a little confused. Do you disagree on what makes a council binding and/or ecumenical?

How do you know who is right?
Logged

"Yeah, the sparrow hath found an house..." -Psalm 84:3
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: 37,124



« Reply #73 on: April 29, 2010, 11:13:09 PM »

ialmisry and Fr. George,
I'm a little confused. Do you disagree on what makes a council binding and/or ecumenical?

How do you know who is right?
Since both Father and I end up with the exact same Councils, it would seem both of us are right.
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
militantsparrow
Laurence
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Antiochian Orthodox Christian Archdiocese of North America
Posts: 614


militantsparrow
« Reply #74 on: April 30, 2010, 09:19:13 PM »

ialmisry and Fr. George,
I'm a little confused. Do you disagree on what makes a council binding and/or ecumenical?

How do you know who is right?
Since both Father and I end up with the exact same Councils, it would seem both of us are right.

Oddly enough, I find this to be one of the most convincing arguments for Orthodoxy. I've heard Catholic apologists use Catholicism's longevity as proof for its divine institution, but only God could make something as seemingly unorganized as Orthodoxy survive 2000 years of a not so easy history. The fact that you and Fr. George have two completely different ideas on what makes a council binding yet come up with the same list is actually kind of cool.

And I mean no disrespect by this. I truly appreciate this quality in Orthodoxy.
Logged

"Yeah, the sparrow hath found an house..." -Psalm 84:3
Fr. George
formerly "Cleveland"
Administrator
Stratopedarches
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox (Catholic) Christian
Jurisdiction: GOA - Metropolis of Pittsburgh
Posts: 19,907


May the Lord bless you and keep you always!


« Reply #75 on: April 30, 2010, 09:56:39 PM »

I don't know if we have "completely different" ideas... Just different at various points.
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.
militantsparrow
Laurence
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Antiochian Orthodox Christian Archdiocese of North America
Posts: 614


militantsparrow
« Reply #76 on: April 30, 2010, 10:29:00 PM »

I don't know if we have "completely different" ideas... Just different at various points.

My apologies Father. I tend to exaggerate when trying to make a point.
Logged

"Yeah, the sparrow hath found an house..." -Psalm 84:3
Justin Kissel
Formerly Asteriktos
Protospatharios
****************
Online Online

Faith: BZZT
Posts: 29,235


« Reply #77 on: May 10, 2010, 09:18:06 PM »

Quote
Are the Oriental Orthodox in the Church?

Depends on what you mean by that. Oriental Orthodox Christians attend the local Antiochian parish here, and commune, confess, etc. Is that "in the Church"? You tell me. Smiley

Was this not forbidden by Metropolitan Philip in an encyclical he issued a few years back.  Has he revoked it?

I finally asked my (Antiochian) priest about this tonight. He said that he wasn't aware of any encyclicals which took a more stringent approach issued by Met. Philip. However, he said that it's possible that there were abuses somewhere and Met. Philip said/did something about it and my priest is just not aware of it. He also clarified for me a point that I was mistaken on. I was under the impression that Oriental Orthodox could come and go and participate in the sacraments whenever they needed to. However, apparently if an Oriental Orthodox Christian wants to participate in the sacraments at an Antiochian parish, they essentially have to make that parish their home parish.
Logged
deusveritasest
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: None
Jurisdiction: None
Posts: 7,528



WWW
« Reply #78 on: May 10, 2010, 09:29:44 PM »

Ecumenical actually means the whole body of or whole church.

No, it doesn't. It means "of the (whole) inhabited world".
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 #79 on: May 10, 2010, 09:31:49 PM »

Regardless of what anyone's religious convictions are, once the Christian church split apart after the 7th (8th council seen as a "robber council") there could no longer be an "Ecumenical" council.  

There can never be an Ecumenical Council until the East and West are reunited (not sure if reunion with Protestants is an issue in regard to Church Councils; correct me if I'm wrong).  As I'm sure you know, Catholicism sees their 'councils' as 'Ecumenical' which depletes the whole meaning of Ecumenical.

You're essentially espousing branch theory here. The Christian church did not "split apart" it remained one. And the representation of the whole church would only require the whole representation of the one communion established by Christ, not of all Christendom. Therefore, the East and West being reunited should not be required.
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 #80 on: May 10, 2010, 09:34:59 PM »

You will note that there has been for decades various mentions of the possibility of the upcoming Great and Holy Council becoming the 8th Ecumenical Council.

Such numeration would be based on the opinion that there has not been already an 8th, which is a disputed opinion.
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 #81 on: May 10, 2010, 09:38:43 PM »

we had Ecumenical Councils even after the Nestorians and Orientals left though ....
Yes, but we EO and RC are also the only ones who call those councils ecumenical.

exactly, thats the point -- we can still have Ecumenical Councils even after signifcant bodies leave the Church.
But that's based on how you define the Church--who's in and who's out.


i have no idea what youre talking about. the Church remains one and whole, no matter who chooses to leave. therefore, we can still have Ecumenical Councils, as history demonstrates.
Not disagreeing with that.  Our disagreement is apparently over who is in the Church and who is outside it.  I'm just postulating, in opposition to your insinuation that the OO left the Church, that if the OO never separated from the Church, then only our first three Ecumenical Councils can be considered truly ecumenical, since the OO never accepted the next four.

Unless you don't have the definition of "ecumenical" right. If it is more so a reference to the Roman Empire, which is really what had the historical identification with the concept of "the inhabited world" then a council is ecumenical based on its association with the Roman Empire, rather than some particular universal representation of the Church. As such, it's entirely possible that the OOC is the Church of Christ, yet Ecumenical Councils continued to be conducted in the Roman/Byzantine church. Chalcedon, Constantinople II, Cosntantinople III, etc. could thus be considered Ecumenical Councils, though not in the sense you were just speaking of.
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
Irish Hermit
Kibernetski Kaludjer
Warned
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Posts: 10,991


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us


« Reply #82 on: May 10, 2010, 09:42:11 PM »

You will note that there has been for decades various mentions of the possibility of the upcoming Great and Holy Council becoming the 8th Ecumenical Council.

Such numeration would be based on the opinion that there has not been already an 8th, which is a disputed opinion.

I don't see the dispute.  If there had been an 8th Ecumenical Council already, the Churches would know of it and honour it.  It would be included in our ecclesiastical calendar and celebrated liturgically as are the Seven Ecumenical Councils.  It would be included in the text books for seminaries and taught to our future priests.  It would be in catechisms.  There would be icons to honour it.
« Last Edit: May 10, 2010, 09:43:09 PM by Irish Hermit » Logged
deusveritasest
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: None
Jurisdiction: None
Posts: 7,528



WWW
« Reply #83 on: May 10, 2010, 09:44:23 PM »

after all, if Non-Chalcedonians are still in the Church, but only accept 3 councils, then how are there 7 (or 9) already?

Because the concept of "Ecumenical Council" could very well have been a reflection of connection with the Roman Empire, which was identified as the oecumene, rather than a universal acceptance in the Church.

(Not saying that I agree in the dual presence of both the Byzantines and the Orientals in the one Church, however.)
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 #84 on: May 10, 2010, 09:46:46 PM »

I see you are referring to our upcoming Council as the 10th.   I am not sure why.  Our bishops and theologians refer to it as the 8th (assuming it is even eventually accepted as an Ecumenical Council.)

Because Constantinople IV in 879 and Constantinople V in 1341 are both often considered to have been Ecumenical Councils, the 8th and 9th respectively.
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 #85 on: May 10, 2010, 09:49:18 PM »


A confirmation of the Orthodox judgement of whom it sees as within the Church will come in the form of the list of participant Churches at the forthcoming Great and Holy Council.  In actual fact we are already aware of the participating Churches and so we may determinine who holds membership in the Church.  None will be excluded from the Council who should be there and none will be included who should not be there.  Churches such as the True Orthodox Church of Serbia, the Walled Off Synod in Protest of Phili, will not be participating.

Quite a large percentage of the clergy of your communion accept the Non-Chalcedonians as in the Church, yet I do not see them being invited to this would-be 10th ecumenical council. Perhaps the invitation list is not as comprehensive as you suggest, and PeterTheAleut raises a valid point; after all, if Non-Chalcedonians are still in the Church, but only accept 3 councils, then how are there 7 (or 9) already?

Maybe you do not personally believe in the "Two Families" theory of Orthodoxy, but it's certainly not a fringe view amongst clergy in your communion, so I am curious how you reconcile these quite divergent views? Or is the "Two Families" language just diplomacy that shouldn't really be taken seriously?
Christ is Risen!

Dear Father,

Do you have any statements from the Holy Synod of the Russian Orthodox Church which substantiate the claim that a "Two Family" theory is advocated by my Church?  This is the first time I have heard of it.

Your refer to Peter's point but I am not sure really what point Peter wishes to make.   It would be a surprise to me if his Church accepted the non-Chalcedonian Churches as the Church.  Is there any statement from the OCA Synod on this matter?
Fr. Ambrose, I think Fr. Anastasios actually understands my point pretty well.  I'm not arguing that my church accepts the OO as being in the Church, which appears to be what you see in my logic.  My point is that IF we consider the OO to be part of the Church, how do we also hold fast to seven Ecumenical Councils?  Why do we not believe that only the first three are truly ecumenical?  I'm not arguing that the OO are part of the Church and that there are only three councils we can call Ecumenical, nor am I arguing that there are seven Ecumenical Councils and that the OO put themselves outside the Church by rejecting the last four.  All I'm pointing out is that belief that the OO are in the Church and belief that there are seven Ecumenical Councils are, on the surface, contradictory beliefs.

No, they are not. There were seven (or more) councils officially sanctioned as universal to the Roman Empire (the oecumene) and its church (which was not identical to the universal church, excluding Armenia, Ethiopia, Persia, etc.) regardless of whether the Orientals accepted them or not.
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
Cymbyz
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Greek Orthodox Archdiocese of America
Posts: 496



« Reply #86 on: May 10, 2010, 09:50:19 PM »

The seven Councils that we honor as Ecumenical all dealt chiefly with Christological controversies.  I can't see nay more Councils being hailed as Ecumenical unless they deal with any new Christological controversies that arise, though I'm willing to extend the definition to any Council that upholds the Orthodox understanding of the Trinity and thus deals with, for instance, Pnevmatological heresies arising from within Orthodoxy.
Logged

The end of the world
is as near as the day of your death;
watch and pray.
 
 Yahoo! & WLM ID: Owen
deusveritasest
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: None
Jurisdiction: None
Posts: 7,528



WWW
« Reply #87 on: May 10, 2010, 09:53:18 PM »

The reason we've not had another ecumenical council, IMO, is because there is no empire and no emperor. . .

That makes a lot of sense because "Ecumenical" simply means "Imperial" and the Seven Councils were called by emperors to preserve the unity of their empire.

Yeah, but so were the Constantinopolitan synods in 879 and 1341.
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 #88 on: May 10, 2010, 09:54:14 PM »

The seven Councils that we honor as Ecumenical all dealt chiefly with Christological controversies.  I can't see nay more Councils being hailed as Ecumenical unless they deal with any new Christological controversies that arise, though I'm willing to extend the definition to any Council that upholds the Orthodox understanding of the Trinity and thus deals with, for instance, Pnevmatological heresies arising from within Orthodoxy.

Except an Ecumenical Council is simply one that was convoked and sanctioned by the Roman Empire.
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 #89 on: May 10, 2010, 09:56:14 PM »

The reason we've not had another ecumenical council, IMO, is because there is no empire and no emperor. . .

That makes a lot of sense because "Ecumenical" simply means "Imperial" and the Seven Councils were called by emperors to preserve the unity of their empire.

Your statement about the meaning of the word 'ecumenical' is not correct. While some academic and church treatises on the Councils  may  refer to the "Ecumenical (Imperial) Councils", neither the definition nor the derivation of the English word 'ecumenical' equates to or connotes the word 'imperial'. I don't think that is common usage in either the Church or academia.

The Oxford Dictionary online defines and derives the words 'ecumenical' and 'imperial' as follows: 

"ecumenical
/eekyoomennik’l, ek-/

  • adjective 1 representing a number of different Christian Churches. 2 promoting or relating to unity among the world’s Christian Churches.

  — DERIVATIVES ecumenically adverb.

  — ORIGIN Greek oikoumenikos, from oikoumene ‘the inhabited earth’."

http://www.askoxford.com/results/?view=dict&freesearch=ecumenical&branch=13842570&textsearchtype=exact

"imperial

  • adjective 1 relating to an empire or an emperor. 2 characteristic of an emperor; majestic or magnificent. 3 relating to or denoting the system of non-metric weights and measures formerly used for all measures in the UK, and still used for some.

  — DERIVATIVES imperially adverb.

  — ORIGIN Latin imperialis, from imperium ‘command, empire."
'

http://www.askoxford.com/concise_oed/imperial?view=uk

The Mirriam-Webster dictionary does likewise. http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/ecumenical

You're missing the fact that connects the dots between your two definitions. The Roman Empire was commonly understood to represent the inhabited world at the time and was explicitly referred to as "the oecumene".
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
Irish Hermit
Kibernetski Kaludjer
Warned
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Posts: 10,991


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us


« Reply #90 on: May 10, 2010, 09:58:47 PM »

The reason we've not had another ecumenical council, IMO, is because there is no empire and no emperor. . .

That makes a lot of sense because "Ecumenical" simply means "Imperial" and the Seven Councils were called by emperors to preserve the unity of their empire.

Yeah, but so were the Constantinopolitan synods in 879 and 1341.

I do not understand why an Oriental Christian would be arguing that the Eastern Orthodox have had not 3, not 4, but 8 or even 9 Councils!

Logged
deusveritasest
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: None
Jurisdiction: None
Posts: 7,528



WWW
« Reply #91 on: May 10, 2010, 09:58:47 PM »

Christos anesti!
It may not be the current usage in English, but I believe we should deliberately redefine it...the word is a translation of a Greek term which had a clear connotation to the Christian empire.  What gets "lost in translation" only benefits the Roman Catholics, and not us, because of this confusion about "having to have Rome to have a council."  We've had several pan-Orthodox councils since then, but in Greek they are not called ecumenical because (as I understand it) they were not called by the emperor).

I'm not always a partisan of redefining words, etc., as I think it can become an exercise in silliness (a la "we are the Real Roman Catholics" --> Well yes, we are, but who understands what that means?)  But with the term ecumenical council, we are discussing something that is a translation of a Greek term and we should have an understanding of what the word connotated in Greek.  Yes, ecumenical means the whole world, but to the Christians, that mean the empire, outside of which was just barbarianism....
a-HEM! Armenia was outside the empire, and the first Christian kingdom.

retranslating "Ecumenical" as "Imperial" would give validation to the Caesaropapism nonsense.  Render unto God, that which is God's.  The emperor's only role as far as the Councils are concerned is making it possible for the whole of the Church to meet and disseminate Her teaching.

None the less, the Roman Empire was explicitly referred to as the oecumene and thus it is most reasonable to assume that what the Fathers meant by an Oecumenical council was one convoked by and sanctioned by the Roman Empire.
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 #92 on: May 10, 2010, 10:01:18 PM »

The reason we've not had another ecumenical council, IMO, is because there is no empire and no emperor. . .

That makes a lot of sense because "Ecumenical" simply means "Imperial" and the Seven Councils were called by emperors to preserve the unity of their empire.

Yeah, but so were the Constantinopolitan synods in 879 and 1341.

I do not understand why an Oriental Christian would be arguing that the Eastern Orthodox have had not 3, not 4, but 8 or even 9 Councils!



That's because you're having a hard time exiting outside of your contrived and revisionist understanding of what "ecumenical" meant (not to your personal fault, as it is admittedly the common mythological understanding of what it means).

I recognize there having been 9 councils that were ecumenical because they were sanctioned by the Roman Empire, but the Roman Empire is not understood by us as the real definer of the faith and thus I only consider 3 of the 9 Ecumenical Councils worth accepting.
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 #93 on: May 10, 2010, 10:04:17 PM »

Armenian, Syriac, and other bishops were invited and attended various of the three first councils

As far as I know, however, the Persian church, which was recognized by a representative of the Church of Antioch as autocephalous in a synod in 410, was not represented at any one of those councils.
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 #94 on: May 10, 2010, 10:07:40 PM »

ISTM, that to us modern English speakers, the term 'imperial' conjures up a negative image - not one consistent with a living Church that must operate in the times in which we live. Since I can not presume to foresee the future of humanity, I won't state that there will 'never' be a new Christian empire as there once was, but there is just 'something' about empires and imperial power that sticks in my 'craw' so to speak.  I  prefer the term 'ecumenical'.

To avoid recognizing "of the Roman Empire" as the original meaning of "Ecumenical" is none the less delusional, even if you happen to not like changing the English word for it. That this reality conjures up problems for you Byzantines reveals your unhealthy obsession with the concept of ecumenicity. If you just realized that a council can have universal authority in whether it properly reflects the orthodox faith or not, this would not be a problem.
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 #95 on: May 10, 2010, 10:10:58 PM »

It was my understanding that the council's themselves referenced that the councils were called by the emperor and the Pope.

It's possible that they did, but if that is the case it was an error. Some of these councils had absolutely nothing to do with the Bishop of Rome, Constantinople I being the most famous example.
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 #96 on: May 10, 2010, 10:13:02 PM »

If it can be proved, then Rome has never had an ecumenical council since the split.

I don't think your conclusion follows, because you're missing a fundamental step:  Since the split, each side sees the other as having completely left the Church - and those outside the Church cannot prevent the Church from having an Ecumenical Council.  Rome will claim that she has had Ecumenical Councils, and will point out that she has Bishops/Archbishops/Cardinals/Patriarchs in each of the other Eastern Sees that have attended these councils.  The Orthodox will also claim that we have had Ecumenical Councils, and we can continue to do so, because Rome has left the Church but yet the Church is still whole, not dependent on one human personality or see.

Ummmm. The document says that ecumenicity must involve agreement of the Eastern Patriarchs. He is right in his conclusion. If we do not take the document into account, one could explain that Rome can still have Universal Councils because of the Eastern Patriarchs falling. However, the document appears to not take that reality into consideration.
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 #97 on: May 10, 2010, 10:14:58 PM »

Unless of course the Eastern Bishops ceased to be members of the Catholic Church, in which case they would not be necessary anymore. 

I don't even think this is an issue for you folks: you've got bishops in each of the Eastern Ancient cities that are in your communion.

Again, what you are saying is missing the mark. The Uniates did not begin rejoining Rome until significantly after the first few councils the Romans consider to have been universal after the schism.
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 #98 on: May 10, 2010, 10:17:41 PM »

Is the council of Jerusalem depicted in Acts considered an ecumenical council by the Orthodox?

No. Yet more proof that "ecumenical" actually historically meant of the Roman Empire rather than ecclesiastically univeral. The Roman Empire had nothing to do with the council of Jerusalem, though the Church was universally represented at it.
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
Irish Hermit
Kibernetski Kaludjer
Warned
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Posts: 10,991


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us


« Reply #99 on: May 10, 2010, 10:18:53 PM »

The reason we've not had another ecumenical council, IMO, is because there is no empire and no emperor. . .

That makes a lot of sense because "Ecumenical" simply means "Imperial" and the Seven Councils were called by emperors to preserve the unity of their empire.

Yeah, but so were the Constantinopolitan synods in 879 and 1341.

I do not understand why an Oriental Christian would be arguing that the Eastern Orthodox have had not 3, not 4, but 8 or even 9 Councils!



That's because you're having a hard time exiting outside of your contrived and revisionist understanding of what "ecumenical" meant (not to your personal fault, as it is admittedly the common mythological understanding of what it means).

I recognize there having been 9 councils that were ecumenical because they were sanctioned by the Roman Empire, but the Roman Empire is not understood by us as the real definer of the faith and thus I only consider 3 of the 9 Ecumenical Councils worth accepting.

Please don't play word games.  It is *you* who are insisting on your own understanding of 'ecumenical.'

But call these Councils what you like - General Synods of the Church perhaps.  The fact remains that despite this rather unusual attempt by an Oriental Christian to foist 8 or 9 of them on us, the tradition of the Church recognizes 7.
Logged
deusveritasest
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: None
Jurisdiction: None
Posts: 7,528



WWW
« Reply #100 on: May 10, 2010, 10:19:43 PM »

Is the council of Jerusalem depicted in Acts considered an ecumenical council by the Orthodox?

No - we call it the Apostolic Council, which is a term that is IMO more reverent than Ecumenical.
Sort of the template of what the Apostles' successors did in Ecumenical Council.

But obviously without the cooperation with the Emperor. I would think this implies that the emperor isn't needed for a council to be ecumenical/apostolic.

Actually, the fact that it was not historically considered ecumenical implies quite the contrary: that the Roman Emperor is necessary for a council to be considered ecumenical.
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 #101 on: May 10, 2010, 10:23:41 PM »

Please don't play word games.  It is *you* who are insisting on your own understanding of 'ecumenical.'

That's because it's the most apparent historical meaning. The Church universal was not referred to as the oecumene. The Roman Empire was. Quite simple.

But call these Councils what you like - General Synods of the Church perhaps.

A General/Universal Council would be an entirely different matter from an Ecumenical one.

The fact remains that despite this rather unusual attempt by an Oriental Christian to foist 8 or 9 of them on us, the tradition of the Church recognizes 7.

Most OO don't really care to enumerate how many Ecumenical Councils there actually were. We only accepted the first three of them, and after that point it doesn't really matter to most. The numeration of 8 or 9 is almost exclusively done by scholars of your communion. And it points to a different understanding of what "Ecumenical" means, a difference I happen to recognize.

Your conception that "the tradition of the Church recognizes 7" is simply what you want to believe. Presbyter Anastasios showed pretty significant evidence to the contrary, which you seemed to have simply ignored.
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 #102 on: May 10, 2010, 10:27:19 PM »

Is the council of Jerusalem depicted in Acts considered an ecumenical council by the Orthodox?
No - we call it the Apostolic Council, which is a term that is IMO more reverent than Ecumenical.
Sort of the template of what the Apostles' successors did in Ecumenical Council.
But obviously without the cooperation with the Emperor. I would think this implies that the emperor isn't needed for a council to be ecumenical/apostolic.

Well, yes, but then again it had what none of the Ecumenical Councils had: a discussion dominated by people who heard Christ's teachings from His lips, who held His hands, and who had their feet washed by Him in His humility.  Further councils followed their example of piety, humility, and organization, but certainly the charism of that council was different (not less or more, just different) than the subsequent Ecumenical Councils.
No emperor, no councils?

No Roman Emperor, no Ecumenical Councils, in the sense of what Christians understood "Ecumenical" to have meant throughout much of history. The term could very well be re-applied sometime in the future to something else that may fit the sense of "the inhabited world", and then we could begin to have Ecumenical Councils again. However, that is largely irrelevant to the actual sense of authoritative councils or universal (of the whole Church) councils. Authoritative or even universal councils could very well happen without Ecumenical Councils.
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 #103 on: May 10, 2010, 10:30:37 PM »

Not relevant at all as to their authority in the Church as whole Christian kingdoms (starting with Armenia, the first one) were not under the Emperor for the first 2 at least, and his authority didn't extend much beyond the patriarchate of Constantinople for the seventh.

"Authority in the Church as a whole" is not relevant to a council's status as ecumenical.
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 #104 on: May 10, 2010, 10:31:58 PM »

You will note that there has been for decades various mentions of the possibility of the upcoming Great and Holy Council becoming the 8th Ecumenical Council.

Such numeration would be based on the opinion that there has not been already an 8th, which is a disputed opinion.

I don't see the dispute.  If there had been an 8th Ecumenical Council already, the Churches would know of it and honour it.  It would be included in our ecclesiastical calendar and celebrated liturgically as are the Seven Ecumenical Councils.  It would be included in the text books for seminaries and taught to our future priests.  It would be in catechisms.  There would be icons to honour it.

Why would that be so?
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
PeterTheAleut
The Right Blowhard Peter the Furtive of Yetts O'Muckhart
Section Moderator
Protospatharios
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 31,441


EXTERMINATE!


« Reply #105 on: May 11, 2010, 02:11:05 AM »


A confirmation of the Orthodox judgement of whom it sees as within the Church will come in the form of the list of participant Churches at the forthcoming Great and Holy Council.  In actual fact we are already aware of the participating Churches and so we may determinine who holds membership in the Church.  None will be excluded from the Council who should be there and none will be included who should not be there.  Churches such as the True Orthodox Church of Serbia, the Walled Off Synod in Protest of Phili, will not be participating.

Quite a large percentage of the clergy of your communion accept the Non-Chalcedonians as in the Church, yet I do not see them being invited to this would-be 10th ecumenical council. Perhaps the invitation list is not as comprehensive as you suggest, and PeterTheAleut raises a valid point; after all, if Non-Chalcedonians are still in the Church, but only accept 3 councils, then how are there 7 (or 9) already?

Maybe you do not personally believe in the "Two Families" theory of Orthodoxy, but it's certainly not a fringe view amongst clergy in your communion, so I am curious how you reconcile these quite divergent views? Or is the "Two Families" language just diplomacy that shouldn't really be taken seriously?
Christ is Risen!

Dear Father,

Do you have any statements from the Holy Synod of the Russian Orthodox Church which substantiate the claim that a "Two Family" theory is advocated by my Church?  This is the first time I have heard of it.

Your refer to Peter's point but I am not sure really what point Peter wishes to make.   It would be a surprise to me if his Church accepted the non-Chalcedonian Churches as the Church.  Is there any statement from the OCA Synod on this matter?
Fr. Ambrose, I think Fr. Anastasios actually understands my point pretty well.  I'm not arguing that my church accepts the OO as being in the Church, which appears to be what you see in my logic.  My point is that IF we consider the OO to be part of the Church, how do we also hold fast to seven Ecumenical Councils?  Why do we not believe that only the first three are truly ecumenical?  I'm not arguing that the OO are part of the Church and that there are only three councils we can call Ecumenical, nor am I arguing that there are seven Ecumenical Councils and that the OO put themselves outside the Church by rejecting the last four.  All I'm pointing out is that belief that the OO are in the Church and belief that there are seven Ecumenical Councils are, on the surface, contradictory beliefs.

No, they are not. There were seven (or more) councils officially sanctioned as universal to the Roman Empire (the oecumene) and its church (which was not identical to the universal church, excluding Armenia, Ethiopia, Persia, etc.) regardless of whether the Orientals accepted them or not.
Did you miss my use of the phrase "on the surface"?  It's actually very important to the logic of my statement.
Logged
Irish Hermit
Kibernetski Kaludjer
Warned
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Posts: 10,991


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us


« Reply #106 on: May 11, 2010, 05:19:42 AM »

It would seem that the long-advertised "Eighth Ecumenical Council" may indeed be near at hand, and it is time enough for Orthodox Christians to look

-oOo-

HISTORY OF THE PREPARATIONS FOR THE ""EIGHTH ECUMENICAL COUNCIL"
(The outline of historical facts is taken from Episkepsis, publication
of the Orthodox Center at Chambesy, 1976, no. 155, pp. 7-9.)

THERE WAS TALK of an "Eighth Ecumenical Council" already before the First World War and especially in the 1920's

-oOo-

RESULTS OF THE FIRST PRE-SYNODAL CONFERENCE
THE RESULTS of this latest Pan-Orthodox Conference were printed in Episkepsis (1976, no. 158, in French, much abridged) and in the Journal of the Moscow Patriarchate (1977, no. 3, pp. 4-14, in Russian, apparently complete). These results are composed of the reports of three Committees, a general Decree and communiquée, and official Declarations of several hierarchs. These documents already begin to give a more clear and precise idea of what, after fifteen years of preparations, the approaching "eighth Ecumenical Council" is all about.

-oOo-

And unknown by such a luminary as Archbp Theophan of Poltava:

In 1930 a young theological student, later to become the great spokesman of true Orthodoxy, Archbishop Averky of Jordanville, heard of the rumors of an approaching "Eighth Ecumenical Council" and asked his Abba, the great theologian of the Russian Diaspora, Archbishop Theophan of Poltava, about it. The latter replied: "Of an eighth ecumenical council I have as yet heard nothing. I can only say, in the words of St. Theodore the Studite: 'Not every gathering of bishops is a council, but only a gathering of bishops who stand in the Truth.'

-oOo-

The above extracts from
http://www.orthodoxinfo.com/ecumenism/towards.aspx

-oOo-

Also these words from Saint Nektary of Optina, the last Optina Elder who died in 1927:

Once N. Pavlovich asked the Elder: "Is it possible to hope for the unification of the churches?"

He replied, "No! only an Ecumenical Council could do that, but there will be no more councils. There have already been seven councils, like the seven sacraments and the seven gifts of the Holy Spirit. For our age, the number of fullness is the number seven. Eight is the number of the future age. Only separate people will be united to our Church."

"Wisdom has built herself a house with seven pillars. Orthodoxy has these seven pillars. But God's wisdom has other dwellings- they may have six pillars or fewer, and accordingly a lesser measure of grace." Saint Nektary of Optina


Source: Elder Nektary of Optina by I.M. Kontzevitch Pages 181 and 182

Saint Nektary may be mistaken about the possibility of a future eighth ecumenical Council, but he is quite sure that there have been just seven so far!
Logged
Fr. George
formerly "Cleveland"
Administrator
Stratopedarches
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox (Catholic) Christian
Jurisdiction: GOA - Metropolis of Pittsburgh
Posts: 19,907


May the Lord bless you and keep you always!


« Reply #107 on: May 11, 2010, 07:08:22 AM »

Am I to trust that the Photian and Palamite Councils are less important to our faith than the first Seven?
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.
Irish Hermit
Kibernetski Kaludjer
Warned
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Posts: 10,991


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us


« Reply #108 on: May 11, 2010, 07:21:43 AM »

Am I to trust that the Photian and Palamite Councils are less important to our faith than the first Seven?

I think that local Councils may very well have a large significance to the Church but that does not mean they must be included in the number of Ecumenical Councils, and in fact the Church has not seen fit to include these.

It will be a quite different matter if the upcoming Ecumenical Council (assuming it is so accepted by the Church) affirms and names the Photian Council and the two Palamite Councils as Ecumenical Councils as Eight, Nine and Ten (or combines the Palamite Councils under the designation of Nine.)

But until that happens there is no consensus in the Orthodox Churches which proclaims more than Seven Ecumenical Councils.

To assert that there are any more is to be on the wrong side of Saint Vincent of Lerins' handy rule of thumb '"Magnopere curandum est ut id teneatur quod ubique, quod semper, quod ab omnibus creditum est"  - We must take extreme care that what is held is that which is believed everywhere, always and by everybody.

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

Faith: Orthodox (Catholic) Christian
Jurisdiction: GOA - Metropolis of Pittsburgh
Posts: 19,907


May the Lord bless you and keep you always!


« Reply #109 on: May 11, 2010, 07:24:58 AM »

I do not agree that the Church has not upheld those two councils as being on par with the First Seven, and I certainly do not think the issue is as cut-and-dry as you imply (see Pensateomnia's earlier post on the matter for some examples).

By the way, your quote is not useful here - for the objections to the RC changes, and the clarification of hesychasm, are upheld and believed by all Orthodox everywhere, always.
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.
Irish Hermit
Kibernetski Kaludjer
Warned
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Posts: 10,991


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us


« Reply #110 on: May 11, 2010, 07:41:07 AM »


By the way, your quote is not useful here - for the objections to the RC changes, and the clarification of hesychasm, are upheld and believed by all Orthodox everywhere, always.

My apologies for being unclear.  I did not mean to imply that there is no Orthodox consensus on Hesychasm, etc, but I was referring to the non-consensus on these three Councils for inclusion with the Seven Ecumenical Councils, making a total of Nine or Ten Councils.

I am not aware of any synodal statements from any Orthodox Church proclaiming that there are eight or nine or ten Ec.Councils.
« Last Edit: May 11, 2010, 07:50:06 AM by Irish Hermit » Logged
Irish Hermit
Kibernetski Kaludjer
Warned
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Posts: 10,991


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us


« Reply #111 on: May 11, 2010, 07:45:39 AM »


I do not agree that the Church has not upheld those two councils as being on par with the First Seven, and I certainly do not think the issue is as cut-and-dry as you imply (see Pensateomnia's earlier post on the matter for some examples).


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

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 sees that there is internal
confusion. The letter contains:
EIGHT references to SEVEN Ecumenical Councils
TWO references to EIGHT Councils
No references to NINE 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."
« Last Edit: May 11, 2010, 07:48:10 AM by Irish Hermit » Logged
Irish Hermit
Kibernetski Kaludjer
Warned
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Posts: 10,991


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us


« Reply #112 on: May 11, 2010, 08:17:59 AM »

I do not agree that the Church has not upheld those two councils as being on par with the First Seven, and I certainly do not think the issue is as cut-and-dry as you imply (see Pensateomnia's earlier post on the matter for some examples).


I am quite interested in what Pensateomnia presented but for the life of me I cannot find any posts from him in this thread.
Logged
Fr. George
formerly "Cleveland"
Administrator
Stratopedarches
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox (Catholic) Christian
Jurisdiction: GOA - Metropolis of Pittsburgh
Posts: 19,907


May the Lord bless you and keep you always!


« Reply #113 on: May 11, 2010, 09:59:23 AM »

I do not agree that the Church has not upheld those two councils as being on par with the First Seven, and I certainly do not think the issue is as cut-and-dry as you imply (see Pensateomnia's earlier post on the matter for some examples).

I am quite interested in what Pensateomnia presented but for the life of me I cannot find any posts from him in this thread.

I'll do the search a bit later - I may be mistaken.
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.
deusveritasest
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: None
Jurisdiction: None
Posts: 7,528



WWW
« Reply #114 on: May 11, 2010, 10:55:54 AM »


A confirmation of the Orthodox judgement of whom it sees as within the Church will come in the form of the list of participant Churches at the forthcoming Great and Holy Council.  In actual fact we are already aware of the participating Churches and so we may determinine who holds membership in the Church.  None will be excluded from the Council who should be there and none will be included who should not be there.  Churches such as the True Orthodox Church of Serbia, the Walled Off Synod in Protest of Phili, will not be participating.

Quite a large percentage of the clergy of your communion accept the Non-Chalcedonians as in the Church, yet I do not see them being invited to this would-be 10th ecumenical council. Perhaps the invitation list is not as comprehensive as you suggest, and PeterTheAleut raises a valid point; after all, if Non-Chalcedonians are still in the Church, but only accept 3 councils, then how are there 7 (or 9) already?

Maybe you do not personally believe in the "Two Families" theory of Orthodoxy, but it's certainly not a fringe view amongst clergy in your communion, so I am curious how you reconcile these quite divergent views? Or is the "Two Families" language just diplomacy that shouldn't really be taken seriously?
Christ is Risen!

Dear Father,

Do you have any statements from the Holy Synod of the Russian Orthodox Church which substantiate the claim that a "Two Family" theory is advocated by my Church?  This is the first time I have heard of it.

Your refer to Peter's point but I am not sure really what point Peter wishes to make.   It would be a surprise to me if his Church accepted the non-Chalcedonian Churches as the Church.  Is there any statement from the OCA Synod on this matter?
Fr. Ambrose, I think Fr. Anastasios actually understands my point pretty well.  I'm not arguing that my church accepts the OO as being in the Church, which appears to be what you see in my logic.  My point is that IF we consider the OO to be part of the Church, how do we also hold fast to seven Ecumenical Councils?  Why do we not believe that only the first three are truly ecumenical?  I'm not arguing that the OO are part of the Church and that there are only three councils we can call Ecumenical, nor am I arguing that there are seven Ecumenical Councils and that the OO put themselves outside the Church by rejecting the last four.  All I'm pointing out is that belief that the OO are in the Church and belief that there are seven Ecumenical Councils are, on the surface, contradictory beliefs.

No, they are not. There were seven (or more) councils officially sanctioned as universal to the Roman Empire (the oecumene) and its church (which was not identical to the universal church, excluding Armenia, Ethiopia, Persia, etc.) regardless of whether the Orientals accepted them or not.
Did you miss my use of the phrase "on the surface"?  It's actually very important to the logic of my statement.

Alright. But it's still worth pointing out that if a council's status as ecumenical is a matter of its sanction by the Roman Empire then there can very well be more ecumenical councils than the OO recognize as orthodox without that posing an inherent problem for their catholicity.
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 #115 on: May 11, 2010, 10:56:49 AM »

It would seem that the long-advertised "Eighth Ecumenical Council" may indeed be near at hand, and it is time enough for Orthodox Christians to look

-oOo-

HISTORY OF THE PREPARATIONS FOR THE ""EIGHTH ECUMENICAL COUNCIL"
(The outline of historical facts is taken from Episkepsis, publication
of the Orthodox Center at Chambesy, 1976, no. 155, pp. 7-9.)

THERE WAS TALK of an "Eighth Ecumenical Council" already before the First World War and especially in the 1920's

-oOo-

RESULTS OF THE FIRST PRE-SYNODAL CONFERENCE
THE RESULTS of this latest Pan-Orthodox Conference were printed in Episkepsis (1976, no. 158, in French, much abridged) and in the Journal of the Moscow Patriarchate (1977, no. 3, pp. 4-14, in Russian, apparently complete). These results are composed of the reports of three Committees, a general Decree and communiquée, and official Declarations of several hierarchs. These documents already begin to give a more clear and precise idea of what, after fifteen years of preparations, the approaching "eighth Ecumenical Council" is all about.

-oOo-

And unknown by such a luminary as Archbp Theophan of Poltava:

In 1930 a young theological student, later to become the great spokesman of true Orthodoxy, Archbishop Averky of Jordanville, heard of the rumors of an approaching "Eighth Ecumenical Council" and asked his Abba, the great theologian of the Russian Diaspora, Archbishop Theophan of Poltava, about it. The latter replied: "Of an eighth ecumenical council I have as yet heard nothing. I can only say, in the words of St. Theodore the Studite: 'Not every gathering of bishops is a council, but only a gathering of bishops who stand in the Truth.'

-oOo-

The above extracts from
http://www.orthodoxinfo.com/ecumenism/towards.aspx

-oOo-

Also these words from Saint Nektary of Optina, the last Optina Elder who died in 1927:

Once N. Pavlovich asked the Elder: "Is it possible to hope for the unification of the churches?"

He replied, "No! only an Ecumenical Council could do that, but there will be no more councils. There have already been seven councils, like the seven sacraments and the seven gifts of the Holy Spirit. For our age, the number of fullness is the number seven. Eight is the number of the future age. Only separate people will be united to our Church."

"Wisdom has built herself a house with seven pillars. Orthodoxy has these seven pillars. But God's wisdom has other dwellings- they may have six pillars or fewer, and accordingly a lesser measure of grace." Saint Nektary of Optina


Source: Elder Nektary of Optina by I.M. Kontzevitch Pages 181 and 182

Saint Nektary may be mistaken about the possibility of a future eighth ecumenical Council, but he is quite sure that there have been just seven so far!

That's nice.

Why is this significant?
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 #116 on: May 11, 2010, 10:58:26 AM »

and in fact the Church has not seen fit to include these.

No, only all 4 of the ancient Greek Patriarchates.
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 #117 on: May 11, 2010, 10:59:43 AM »

I am not aware of any synodal statements from any Orthodox Church proclaiming that there are eight or nine or ten Ec.Councils.

Encyclical of the Eastern Patriarchs of 1848.
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 #118 on: May 11, 2010, 11:02:03 AM »


I do not agree that the Church has not upheld those two councils as being on par with the First Seven, and I certainly do not think the issue is as cut-and-dry as you imply (see Pensateomnia's earlier post on the matter for some examples).


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

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 sees that there is internal
confusion. The letter contains:
EIGHT references to SEVEN Ecumenical Councils
TWO references to EIGHT Councils
No references to NINE 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."

These are not substantially contradictory. When they speak of seven ecumenical councils, it should be clear that they are referring to the first seven, rather than that there are only seven.
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
LBK
Warned
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Posts: 10,144


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us!


« Reply #119 on: May 11, 2010, 09:29:34 PM »

These are not substantially contradictory. When they speak of seven ecumenical councils, it should be clear that they are referring to the first seven, rather than that there are only seven.

On the contrary. The Orthodox Church commemorates seven councils, both in its liturgical tradition, and in its iconography. Post-schism, any further councils, though still binding on the Orthodox Church, were simply not referred to as Ecumenical. Hence they are not commemorated liturgically or iconographically by the Church. The closest we get is the commemoration of the Sunday of St Gregory Palamas, being the second Sunday of Great Lent.
Logged
Irish Hermit
Kibernetski Kaludjer
Warned
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Posts: 10,991


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us


« Reply #120 on: May 11, 2010, 10:18:22 PM »

and in fact the Church has not seen fit to include these.

No, only all 4 of the ancient Greek Patriarchates.

Prove it.    Patriarchal statements. Synodal texts. Seminary texts. Catechisms.
Logged
Irish Hermit
Kibernetski Kaludjer
Warned
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Posts: 10,991


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us


« Reply #121 on: May 11, 2010, 10:25:01 PM »

I am not aware of any synodal statements from any Orthodox Church proclaiming that there are eight or nine or ten Ec.Councils.

Encyclical of the Eastern Patriarchs of 1848.

See above message #111.  The letter to the Pope is a great confusion on this point.

Also explain how this letter was written in 1848 and nothing is mentioned of an Eighth Council prior to that.

That is a 1000 year gap from the Seventh Ecumenical Council.  Absolute silence for 1000 years.  

Where are all the references in that 1000 year period?  Was it some sort of esoteric tradition known only to initiates and concealed from the rest of the Church?
« Last Edit: May 11, 2010, 10:30:56 PM by Irish Hermit » Logged
Irish Hermit
Kibernetski Kaludjer
Warned
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Posts: 10,991


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us


« Reply #122 on: May 11, 2010, 10:28:35 PM »


I do not agree that the Church has not upheld those two councils as being on par with the First Seven, and I certainly do not think the issue is as cut-and-dry as you imply (see Pensateomnia's earlier post on the matter for some examples).


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

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 sees that there is internal
confusion. The letter contains:
EIGHT references to SEVEN Ecumenical Councils
TWO references to EIGHT Councils
No references to NINE 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."

These are not substantially contradictory. When they speak of seven ecumenical councils, it should be clear that they are referring to the first seven, rather than that there are only seven.

Right!   And the fact that there is no mention of any Ninth Council at all is firm proof that they knew of it but were concealing it from the Pope.     laugh
Logged
deusveritasest
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: None
Jurisdiction: None
Posts: 7,528



WWW
« Reply #123 on: May 12, 2010, 03:35:39 PM »

These are not substantially contradictory. When they speak of seven ecumenical councils, it should be clear that they are referring to the first seven, rather than that there are only seven.

On the contrary. The Orthodox Church commemorates seven councils, both in its liturgical tradition, and in its iconography. Post-schism, any further councils, though still binding on the Orthodox Church, were simply not referred to as Ecumenical. Hence they are not commemorated liturgically or iconographically by the Church. The closest we get is the commemoration of the Sunday of St Gregory Palamas, being the second Sunday of Great Lent.

The supposed 8th council was not post-Schism.

Besides that fact, where do you get that ecumenicity is limited to the first 1,000 years?

I would also be interested in seeing where you two are getting the idea that common recognition is required for a council to have been ecumenical.
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 #124 on: May 12, 2010, 03:38:36 PM »

and in fact the Church has not seen fit to include these.

No, only all 4 of the ancient Greek Patriarchates.

Prove it.    Patriarchal statements. Synodal texts. Seminary texts. Catechisms.

The Encyclical of the Eastern Patriarchs is the proof I am talking about. All 4 of the ancient Greek Patriarchates explicitly referred to an 8th Ecumenical Council. That's precisely the claim I was making.
« Last Edit: May 12, 2010, 03:38:48 PM by deusveritasest » 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 #125 on: May 12, 2010, 03:41:49 PM »

Also explain how this letter was written in 1848 and nothing is mentioned of an Eighth Council prior to that.

Nothing that you or I know of at this moment. Maybe someone mentioned it that we don't know of. Or maybe no one simply deigned to mention it. Maybe the Seven Councils have been historically regarded as more fundamental and important and worthy of mention.

Was it some sort of esoteric tradition known only to initiates and concealed from the rest of the Church?

Obviously it was not esoteric or concealed if all 4 of the Greek Patriarchates happened to be aware of it independent from each other. That would be pretty much impossible if someone was just making it up.
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 #126 on: May 12, 2010, 03:42:47 PM »

Right!   And the fact that there is no mention of any Ninth Council at all is firm proof that they knew of it but were concealing it from the Pope.     laugh

No, it's either proof that they were not aware of a 9th council or they did not consider it worth mentioning at the time.
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
Irish Hermit
Kibernetski Kaludjer
Warned
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Posts: 10,991


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us


« Reply #127 on: May 12, 2010, 05:52:37 PM »

and in fact the Church has not seen fit to include these.

No, only all 4 of the ancient Greek Patriarchates.

Prove it.    Patriarchal statements. Synodal texts. Seminary texts. Catechisms.

The Encyclical of the Eastern Patriarchs is the proof I am talking about. All 4 of the ancient Greek Patriarchates explicitly referred to an 8th Ecumenical Council. That's precisely the claim I was making.
Christ is Risen!

PLease go back and read Message #111.  That Letter to the Pope is a bit of a mess as regards the enumeration of the Councils, and not to mention that it has no knowledge of any Ninth Council which had supposedly taken place 500 years previously.

Got any 20th century references, official references, from any of the Orthodox Churches?
Logged
Cymbyz
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Greek Orthodox Archdiocese of America
Posts: 496



« Reply #128 on: May 12, 2010, 08:01:03 PM »

Here is a list of the Councils which have received general approbation and are counted by some as Ecumenical:

Two other councils, called Ecumenical by their signatories and convoking Emperors, and one indubitably local council, are considered Ecumenical by some Orthodox:

880 – Constantinople IV
            Issues:  Resolution of the Photian Schism
            Heroes:  Photios the Great, Patriarch
            Dogmatics:  Restored Photios to the See of Constantinople, anathematized anyone who altered the Creed.

1351 – Constantinople V
            Issues:  Hesychasm
            Heroes:  St. Gregory Palamas
            Dogmatics:  Affirmed Hesychasm as taught by St. Gregory Palamas, condemned Barlaam of Seminara.

1672 – Jerusalem
             Issues:  Protestantism, Catholicism
             Heroes:  Dositheos, Pat. of Jerusalem
             Dogmatics:  Defined Orthodoxy relative to Protestantism and Catholicism, defined the Greek Orthodox Biblical canon.

« Last Edit: May 12, 2010, 08:08:34 PM by Cymbyz » Logged

The end of the world
is as near as the day of your death;
watch and pray.
 
 Yahoo! & WLM ID: Owen
Irish Hermit
Kibernetski Kaludjer
Warned
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Posts: 10,991


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us


« Reply #129 on: May 13, 2010, 12:35:29 AM »

Here is a list of the Councils which have received general approbation and are counted by some as Ecumenical:

Two other councils, called Ecumenical by their signatories and convoking Emperors, and one indubitably local council, are considered Ecumenical by some Orthodox:

880 – Constantinople IV
            Issues:  Resolution of the Photian Schism
            Heroes:  Photios the Great, Patriarch
            Dogmatics:  Restored Photios to the See of Constantinople, anathematized anyone who altered the Creed.

1351 – Constantinople V
            Issues:  Hesychasm
            Heroes:  St. Gregory Palamas
            Dogmatics:  Affirmed Hesychasm as taught by St. Gregory Palamas, condemned Barlaam of Seminara.

1672 – Jerusalem
             Issues:  Protestantism, Catholicism
             Heroes:  Dositheos, Pat. of Jerusalem
             Dogmatics:  Defined Orthodoxy relative to Protestantism and Catholicism, defined the Greek Orthodox Biblical canon.



Deae Cymbyz,

Re:  The Symbolical Books of Orthodoxy

As you know, the old curmudgeons on the forum like to have things referenced and substantiated...  Who are the "some"?   

Which of the autocephalous Churches and their Synods have proclaimed these Councils as ecumenical?   Moscow?  Belgrade?  Jerusalem?

In the "good old days" (which was only 40 years ago Smiley ), the acts of these Councils were called "The Symbolical Books" of Orthodoxy and were accorded great respect and authority.  It seems just so unlikely that in the space of a mere 40 years they have travelled up so much in status that they are no longer seen as "The Symbolical Books" but as "Ecumenical Councils."    WHO made this change in their status?  Did I miss a Pan-Orthodox council? Please, if you have some reliable references, provide some evidence of their upgrade in status...?

Fr Ambrose
Russian Orthodox Church (Abroad)
Logged
Cymbyz
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Greek Orthodox Archdiocese of America
Posts: 496



« Reply #130 on: May 13, 2010, 12:41:35 AM »

I was referring more to disparate individuals, rather than to autocephalous churches.  This is the first time I've heard of "The Symbolical books of Orthodoxy;" many thanks for that bit of enlightenment.

But, question:  if the dogmatic decisions of these councils are now accepted by everyone everywhere (or at least, by a preponderant majority within each of the Churches), then why aren't the Councils accorded the title Ecumenical?
Logged

The end of the world
is as near as the day of your death;
watch and pray.
 
 Yahoo! & WLM ID: Owen
deusveritasest
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: None
Jurisdiction: None
Posts: 7,528



WWW
« Reply #131 on: May 13, 2010, 12:58:03 AM »

That Letter to the Pope is a bit of a mess as regards the enumeration of the Councils, and not to mention that it has no knowledge of any Ninth Council which had supposedly taken place 500 years previously.

I already addressed that and you didn't respond to me.

1. Referring to "Seven Ecumenical Councils" and then an "Eighth Ecumenical Council" is not inherently consistent.

2. Like I said, it's possible that they were not aware of the 9th Council or they did not find it relevant to mention at the time.

3. The only reason you're being so stubborn about this, I suspect, is because you are misinterpreting what "Ecumenical" meant to the Fathers.
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
Irish Hermit
Kibernetski Kaludjer
Warned
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Posts: 10,991


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us


« Reply #132 on: May 13, 2010, 01:03:55 AM »

I was referring more to disparate individuals, rather than to autocephalous churches.

It's unusual that "disparate individuals"  would have the authority to bump these "Symbolical Books" of Orthodoxy up to the exalted status of Ecumenical Councils!!   We are a conciliar Church governed by synods of bishops and not by the opinions of individuals a la Protestantism.

 
Quote
But, question:  if the dogmatic decisions of these councils are now accepted by everyone everywhere (or at least, by a preponderant majority within each of the Churches), then why aren't the Councils accorded the title Ecumenical?

I believe they were Greek Councils and had no representation from the Churches of Georgia, Cyprus, Russia, Serbia, etc.  So as with the enormously important Russian Council of the 17th century they are local Councils and will remain such until and if a Great Council of the whole Orthodox Church proclaims them Ecumenical Councils.
Logged
Irish Hermit
Kibernetski Kaludjer
Warned
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Posts: 10,991


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us


« Reply #133 on: May 13, 2010, 01:13:26 AM »

That Letter to the Pope is a bit of a mess as regards the enumeration of the Councils, and not to mention that it has no knowledge of any Ninth Council which had supposedly taken place 500 years previously.

I already addressed that and you didn't respond to me.

1. Referring to "Seven Ecumenical Councils" and then an "Eighth Ecumenical Council" is not inherently consistent.

2. Like I said, it's possible that they were not aware of the 9th Council or they did not find it relevant to mention at the time.

3. The only reason you're being so stubborn about this, I suspect, is because you are misinterpreting what "Ecumenical" meant to the Fathers.

Rather because as a young student in Serbia I was taught that there are SEVEN Ecumenical Councils and no more.  Perhaps in the 1970s they were ignorant of the Ecumenical status of these Councils?!  As the great Saint Paul says:  "Itaque, fratres, state et tenete traditiones, quas didicistis sive per sermonem sive per epistulam nostram."  Paul I know, and my teachers I know,  but who is Deusveritasest and who are the anonymous "disparate individuals" mentioned by Cymbyz? 
Logged
deusveritasest
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: None
Jurisdiction: None
Posts: 7,528



WWW
« Reply #134 on: May 13, 2010, 01:14:03 AM »

Irish Hermit, as far as I know only those documents generated after the Fall of Constantinople are called the symbolic books. That is what this GOAA article would seem to indicate:

http://www.goarch.org/ourfaith/ourfaith8038

Do you have anything that indicates that Constantinople IV or V were part of that group?
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 #135 on: May 13, 2010, 01:21:07 AM »

That Letter to the Pope is a bit of a mess as regards the enumeration of the Councils, and not to mention that it has no knowledge of any Ninth Council which had supposedly taken place 500 years previously.

I already addressed that and you didn't respond to me.

1. Referring to "Seven Ecumenical Councils" and then an "Eighth Ecumenical Council" is not inherently consistent.

2. Like I said, it's possible that they were not aware of the 9th Council or they did not find it relevant to mention at the time.

3. The only reason you're being so stubborn about this, I suspect, is because you are misinterpreting what "Ecumenical" meant to the Fathers.

Rather because as a young student in Serbia I was taught that there are SEVEN Ecumenical Councils and no more.  Perhaps in the 1970s they were ignorant of the Ecumenical status of these Councils?!  As the great Saint Paul says:  "Itaque, fratres, state et tenete traditiones, quas didicistis sive per sermonem sive per epistulam nostram."  Paul I know, and my teachers I know,  but who is Deusveritasest and who are the anonymous "disparate individuals" mentioned by Cymbyz? 


They are not anonymous or disparate. Among them are Patriarch Anthimus VI of Constantinople, Patriarch Hierotheos II of Alexandria, Patriarch Methodius of Antioch, and Patriarch Cyril II of Jerusalem.
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
Irish Hermit
Kibernetski Kaludjer
Warned
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Posts: 10,991


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us


« Reply #136 on: May 13, 2010, 01:32:03 AM »

Irish Hermit, as far as I know only those documents generated after the Fall of Constantinople are called the symbolic books. That is what this GOAA article would seem to indicate:

http://www.goarch.org/ourfaith/ourfaith8038

Do you have anything that indicates that Constantinople IV or V were part of that group?

The following are the chief Orthodox doctrinal statements since 787:

1 The Encyclical Letter of Saint Photius (867)  
2 The First Letter of Michael Cerularius to Peter of Antioch (1054)
3 The decisions of ‘the Councils of Constantinople in 1341 and 1351 on the Hesychast Controversy
4 The Encyclical Letter of Saint Mark of Ephesus (1440-1441).
5 The Confession of Faith by Gennadius, Patriarch of Constantinople (1455-1456)
6 The Replies of Jeremias the Second to the Lutherans (1573-1581)
7 The Confession of Faith by Metrophanes Kritopoulos (1625)
8 The Orthodox Confession by Peter of Moghila, in its revised form (ratified by the Council of Jassy, 1642)
9 The Confession of Dositheus (ratified by the Council of Jerusalem, 1672)
10 The Answers of the Orthodox Patriarchs to the Non-Jurors (1718, 1723)
11 The Reply of the Orthodox Patriarchs to Pope Pius the Ninth (1848)
12 The Reply of the Synod of Constantinople to Pope Leo the Thirteenth (1895)
13 The Encyclical Letters by the Patriarchate of Constantinople on Christian unity and on the ‘Ecumenical Movement’ (1920, 1952)

These documents — particularly items 5-9 — are sometimes called the ‘Symbolical Books’ of
the Orthodox Church, but many Orthodox scholars today regard this title as misleading and do
not use it.
http://www.intratext.com/IXT/ENG0804/_P10.HTM
and

http://www.holy-trinity-church.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=136&Itemid=136&limit=1&limitstart=2

Phew!  It's getting a bit dicey on this forum.... on the one hand we have a Catholic insisting that we don't know our theological onions (Immaculate Conception) and now we have an Oriental Orthodox insisting he knows our Church better than we do.  Should we take this out of the Catholic discussion Forum and into the Oriental Forum?
« Last Edit: May 13, 2010, 01:35:17 AM by Irish Hermit » Logged
Irish Hermit
Kibernetski Kaludjer
Warned
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Posts: 10,991


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us


« Reply #137 on: May 13, 2010, 01:34:35 AM »

That Letter to the Pope is a bit of a mess as regards the enumeration of the Councils, and not to mention that it has no knowledge of any Ninth Council which had supposedly taken place 500 years previously.

I already addressed that and you didn't respond to me.

1. Referring to "Seven Ecumenical Councils" and then an "Eighth Ecumenical Council" is not inherently consistent.

2. Like I said, it's possible that they were not aware of the 9th Council or they did not find it relevant to mention at the time.

3. The only reason you're being so stubborn about this, I suspect, is because you are misinterpreting what "Ecumenical" meant to the Fathers.

Rather because as a young student in Serbia I was taught that there are SEVEN Ecumenical Councils and no more.  Perhaps in the 1970s they were ignorant of the Ecumenical status of these Councils?!  As the great Saint Paul says:  "Itaque, fratres, state et tenete traditiones, quas didicistis sive per sermonem sive per epistulam nostram."  Paul I know, and my teachers I know,  but who is Deusveritasest and who are the anonymous "disparate individuals" mentioned by Cymbyz? 


They are not anonymous or disparate. Among them are Patriarch Anthimus VI of Constantinople, Patriarch Hierotheos II of Alexandria, Patriarch Methodius of Antioch, and Patriarch Cyril II of Jerusalem.

I don't doubt you but unless you substantiate the claims for these Patriarchs we cannot take them as factual and cannot build any discussion on them.
Logged
deusveritasest
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: None
Jurisdiction: None
Posts: 7,528



WWW
« Reply #138 on: May 13, 2010, 01:36:30 AM »

That Letter to the Pope is a bit of a mess as regards the enumeration of the Councils, and not to mention that it has no knowledge of any Ninth Council which had supposedly taken place 500 years previously.

I already addressed that and you didn't respond to me.

1. Referring to "Seven Ecumenical Councils" and then an "Eighth Ecumenical Council" is not inherently consistent.

2. Like I said, it's possible that they were not aware of the 9th Council or they did not find it relevant to mention at the time.

3. The only reason you're being so stubborn about this, I suspect, is because you are misinterpreting what "Ecumenical" meant to the Fathers.

Rather because as a young student in Serbia I was taught that there are SEVEN Ecumenical Councils and no more.  Perhaps in the 1970s they were ignorant of the Ecumenical status of these Councils?!  As the great Saint Paul says:  "Itaque, fratres, state et tenete traditiones, quas didicistis sive per sermonem sive per epistulam nostram."  Paul I know, and my teachers I know,  but who is Deusveritasest and who are the anonymous "disparate individuals" mentioned by Cymbyz? 


They are not anonymous or disparate. Among them are Patriarch Anthimus VI of Constantinople, Patriarch Hierotheos II of Alexandria, Patriarch Methodius of Antioch, and Patriarch Cyril II of Jerusalem.

I don't doubt you but unless you substantiate the claims for these Patriarchs we cannot take them as factual and cannot build any discussion on them.

It's the names of the 4 Patriarchs who signed the 1848 Encyclical.
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 #139 on: May 13, 2010, 01:38:39 AM »

and now we have an Oriental Orthodox insisting he knows our Church better than we do.

So you're not aware of the fact that many Byzantines today are recognizing Eight and sometimes Nine Ecumenical Councils and that also many recognize that the Patristic era meaning of Ecumenical was of the Roman Empire?
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
Irish Hermit
Kibernetski Kaludjer
Warned
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Posts: 10,991


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us


« Reply #140 on: May 13, 2010, 01:57:55 AM »

and now we have an Oriental Orthodox insisting he knows our Church better than we do.

So you're not aware of the fact that many Byzantines today are recognizing Eight and sometimes Nine Ecumenical Councils

One is aware of two Greek clergymen who are fond of the idea of 9 Councils and there is an American convert Thomas (someone or other...) who is pushing the idea as if his life depended on it.

Unless the whole Church agrees on it, it is not very important if a few "Byzantines" advocate it.  After all the "Byzantines" are also demanding total control of the Diaspora.  Outside their own circle who takes that seriously?


Quote
and that also many recognize that the Patristic era meaning of Ecumenical was of the Roman Empire?

I suppose limiting "Ecumenical" to this meaning backs up Isa's claim that the Ecumenical Patriarch is using the title under false pretences.  Or at very least the Patriarch is ignorant of the meaning of the word?
Logged
deusveritasest
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: None
Jurisdiction: None
Posts: 7,528



WWW
« Reply #141 on: May 13, 2010, 02:04:07 AM »

One is aware of two Greek clergymen who are fond of the idea of 9 Councils and there is an American convert Thomas (someone or other...) who is pushing the idea as if his life depended on it.

And the 4 Patriarchs of 1848.

I suppose limiting "Ecumenical" to this meaning backs up Isa's claim that the Ecumenical Patriarch is using the title under false pretences.  Or at very least the Patriarch is ignorant of the meaning of the word?

I would say so. It would appear that the Patriarch of Constantinople new the meaning originally as he started using it once he was the only Patriarch still within the Romano-Byzantine Empire. However, I doubt that he really wanted to give up the title once the Empire fell (though technically he should have) and now the meaning has undergone almost 600 years of contorting.
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
Irish Hermit
Kibernetski Kaludjer
Warned
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Posts: 10,991


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us


« Reply #142 on: May 13, 2010, 02:06:09 AM »



Thomas Ross Valentine's promotion of Nine Councils
http://mb-soft.com/believe/txw/orthcoun.htm

He makes it his hobby to promote Nine Ecumenical Councils.  See his own webpages
http://www.geocities.com/trvalentine/orthodox/8-9synods.html

While it may be in order to argue for Nine Councils on what are obviously his own personal webpages, it is misleading to present Nine Councils on a public website where people come to find accurate information.   There is no indication on the site that no Orthodox Church has accepted Nine Councils. 

What Church is Valentine a member of?  Does he have his bishop's blessing to promote Nine Councils in this global fashion or is this just a promotion of his personal views?  Isn't it misleading people as to the Orthodox faith?
Logged
Irish Hermit
Kibernetski Kaludjer
Warned
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Posts: 10,991


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us


« Reply #143 on: May 13, 2010, 02:11:44 AM »

One is aware of two Greek clergymen who are fond of the idea of 9 Councils and there is an American convert Thomas (someone or other...) who is pushing the idea as if his life depended on it.

And the 4 Patriarchs of 1848.


Name the Patriarchs and the Synods of the 20th century which have declared there are Eight Councils.

Name the Patriarchs and the Synods of the 20th century which have proclaimed Nine or Ten Councils.

Name the seminaries which teach their future priests that there are Eight, Nine and Ten Councils.

Name the days in the year when the Eighth, Ninth and Tenth Councils have a liturgical commemoration.

Show us the holy icons for these Councils.
Logged
deusveritasest
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: None
Jurisdiction: None
Posts: 7,528



WWW
« Reply #144 on: May 13, 2010, 02:14:37 AM »

One is aware of two Greek clergymen who are fond of the idea of 9 Councils and there is an American convert Thomas (someone or other...) who is pushing the idea as if his life depended on it.

And the 4 Patriarchs of 1848.


Name the Patriarchs and the Synods of the 20th century which have declared there are Eight Councils.

Name the Patriarchs and the Synods of the 20th century which have proclaimed Nine or Ten Councils.

Name the seminaries which teach their future priests that there are Eight, Nine and Ten Councils.

Name the days in the year when the Eighth, Ninth and Tenth Councils have a liturgical commemoration.

Show us the holy icons for these Councils.

Why is it significant for any of this to exist?
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 #145 on: May 13, 2010, 02:20:35 AM »



Thomas Ross Valentine's promotion of Nine Councils
http://mb-soft.com/believe/txw/orthcoun.htm

He makes it his hobby to promote Nine Ecumenical Councils.  See his own webpages
http://www.geocities.com/trvalentine/orthodox/8-9synods.html

While it may be in order to argue for Nine Councils on what are obviously his own personal webpages, it is misleading to present Nine Councils on a public website where people come to find accurate information.   There is no indication on the site that no Orthodox Church has accepted Nine Councils. 

What Church is Valentine a member of?  Does he have his bishop's blessing to promote Nine Councils in this global fashion or is this just a promotion of his personal views?  Isn't it misleading people as to the Orthodox faith?


What is so significant about whether it is considered Ecumenical or not if all of the churches have recognized its decisions to be orthodox and authoritative?
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
Irish Hermit
Kibernetski Kaludjer
Warned
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Posts: 10,991


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us


« Reply #146 on: May 13, 2010, 02:41:18 AM »

One is aware of two Greek clergymen who are fond of the idea of 9 Councils and there is an American convert Thomas (someone or other...) who is pushing the idea as if his life depended on it.

And the 4 Patriarchs of 1848.


Name the Patriarchs and the Synods of the 20th century which have declared there are Eight Councils.

Name the Patriarchs and the Synods of the 20th century which have proclaimed Nine or Ten Councils.

Name the seminaries which teach their future priests that there are Eight, Nine and Ten Councils.

Name the days in the year when the Eighth, Ninth and Tenth Councils have a liturgical commemoration.

Show us the holy icons for these Councils.

Why is it significant for any of this to exist?

Let's wrap it up - something that LBK actually did quite a few messages back (msg #119.)

The Orthodox Churches are all agreed that there are Seven Ecumenical Councils.  This is the conciliar decision of the Orthodox Church.  It is not in dispute.

There is a minor opinion being fostered today by "disparate individuals" that we should add in other Councils to make Eight or Nine or Ten.  This has never been ratified by the Orthodox Church.  Judging from what comes out of Chambesy and the preparations for the Eighth Council there is no interest in ratifying these past Councils as Eight, Nine and Ten.

When the Orthodox Church holds a pan-Orthodox Council and declares for Eight or Nine or Ten, I promise to get back to you.
« Last Edit: May 13, 2010, 02:43:29 AM by Irish Hermit » Logged
deusveritasest
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: None
Jurisdiction: None
Posts: 7,528



WWW
« Reply #147 on: May 13, 2010, 02:15:57 PM »

One is aware of two Greek clergymen who are fond of the idea of 9 Councils and there is an American convert Thomas (someone or other...) who is pushing the idea as if his life depended on it.

And the 4 Patriarchs of 1848.


Name the Patriarchs and the Synods of the 20th century which have declared there are Eight Councils.

Name the Patriarchs and the Synods of the 20th century which have proclaimed Nine or Ten Councils.

Name the seminaries which teach their future priests that there are Eight, Nine and Ten Councils.

Name the days in the year when the Eighth, Ninth and Tenth Councils have a liturgical commemoration.

Show us the holy icons for these Councils.

Why is it significant for any of this to exist?

Let's wrap it up - something that LBK actually did quite a few messages back (msg #119.)

The Orthodox Churches are all agreed that there are Seven Ecumenical Councils.  This is the conciliar decision of the Orthodox Church.  It is not in dispute.

There is a minor opinion being fostered today by "disparate individuals" that we should add in other Councils to make Eight or Nine or Ten.  This has never been ratified by the Orthodox Church.  Judging from what comes out of Chambesy and the preparations for the Eighth Council there is no interest in ratifying these past Councils as Eight, Nine and Ten.

When the Orthodox Church holds a pan-Orthodox Council and declares for Eight or Nine or Ten, I promise to get back to you.

They don't need to be ratified for them to have been Ecumenical.
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
Irish Hermit
Kibernetski Kaludjer
Warned
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Posts: 10,991


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us


« Reply #148 on: May 13, 2010, 07:40:33 PM »

One is aware of two Greek clergymen who are fond of the idea of 9 Councils and there is an American convert Thomas (someone or other...) who is pushing the idea as if his life depended on it.

And the 4 Patriarchs of 1848.


Name the Patriarchs and the Synods of the 20th century which have declared there are Eight Councils.

Name the Patriarchs and the Synods of the 20th century which have proclaimed Nine or Ten Councils.

Name the seminaries which teach their future priests that there are Eight, Nine and Ten Councils.

Name the days in the year when the Eighth, Ninth and Tenth Councils have a liturgical commemoration.

Show us the holy icons for these Councils.

Why is it significant for any of this to exist?

Let's wrap it up - something that LBK actually did quite a few messages back (msg #119.)

The Orthodox Churches are all agreed that there are Seven Ecumenical Councils.  This is the conciliar decision of the Orthodox Church.  It is not in dispute.

There is a minor opinion being fostered today by "disparate individuals" that we should add in other Councils to make Eight or Nine or Ten.  This has never been ratified by the Orthodox Church.  Judging from what comes out of Chambesy and the preparations for the Eighth Council there is no interest in ratifying these past Councils as Eight, Nine and Ten.

When the Orthodox Church holds a pan-Orthodox Council and declares for Eight or Nine or Ten, I promise to get back to you.

They don't need to be ratified for them to have been Ecumenical.

Sez who?  When you enter one of the Oriental Orthodox Churches are you planning on telling your hierarchs that Four, Five, Six, Seven, Eight, Nine and Ten are all Ecumenical Councils and it doesn't matter if they have accepted them as such or not?
Logged
LBK
Warned
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Posts: 10,144


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us!


« Reply #149 on: May 13, 2010, 08:06:09 PM »

deusveritasest, I do find it rather odd that you, who was received into the EO church, then after less than a year IIRC, decided that the OO was the more correct path to take. That, in itself, is your choice, of course. So I really can't understand the motivation behind your posts on this thread.
Logged
Irish Hermit
Kibernetski Kaludjer
Warned
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Posts: 10,991


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us


« Reply #150 on: May 13, 2010, 08:41:16 PM »

deusveritasest, I do find it rather odd that you, who was received into the EO church, then after less than a year IIRC, decided that the OO was the more correct path to take. That, in itself, is your choice, of course. So I really can't understand the motivation behind your posts on this thread.

It does seem odd, and if he is insisting that there are Ten Ecumenical Councils I do not see how he can make his home with the Oriental Orthodox.
Logged
deusveritasest
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: None
Jurisdiction: None
Posts: 7,528



WWW
« Reply #151 on: May 14, 2010, 12:26:08 AM »

Sez who?  When you enter one of the Oriental Orthodox Churches are you planning on telling your hierarchs that Four, Five, Six, Seven, Eight, Nine and Ten are all Ecumenical Councils and it doesn't matter if they have accepted them as such or not?

Wow. You still don't get it. We're totally not meaning the same thing by "Ecumenical". I've been trying to explain it to you. I think it is a council sanctioned by the Roman Empire. You seem to think that Ecumenical Councils are inherently authoritative. However, if you understood my definition of them, that is actually not the case for what I am saying. As a matter of fact, I reject the Fourth Ecumenical Council as heterodox, and it is important that the OO hierarchs reject it. The Imperial Church and its councils diverged from the faith of Christ at the 4th. Thus, I recognize that there were nine Ecumenical Councils, however I only accept the first three as orthodox and of the Christian Church (rather than the Imperial church). That is, not to mention Ephesus II which was originally the Fourth Ecumenical Council and Ephesus III (whose once ecumenical status or non status I am not aware of). Therefore whether they recognize the ones beyond the first three as ecumenical or not is irrelevant as they were not councils of the Church.
« Last Edit: May 14, 2010, 12:27:19 AM by deusveritasest » 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 #152 on: May 14, 2010, 12:29:01 AM »

Sez who?

Tell me what the Fathers understood to be the oecumene. It should be quite clear that it was the Roman Empire. Therefore, Ecumenical must mean "of the Roman Empire". So what would make a council "of the Roman Empire"? Ratification by the Roman Emperor. That is the only body that was required to establish a council as ecumenical.
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 #153 on: May 14, 2010, 12:32:10 AM »

deusveritasest, I do find it rather odd that you, who was received into the EO church, then after less than a year IIRC, decided that the OO was the more correct path to take. That, in itself, is your choice, of course. So I really can't understand the motivation behind your posts on this thread.

It's not ultimately relevant to my faith. Whether Chalcedon or Constantinople II or Constantinople III, etc. are ecumenical is not relevant to my faith as I do not recognize them as council of the Church of Christ. I just think that my understanding of what an ecumenical council is is more historically evident, and for Irish Hermit to react so strongly against what I am saying as such is slightly annoying.
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 #154 on: May 14, 2010, 12:37:22 AM »

It does seem odd, and if he is insisting that there are Ten Ecumenical Councils I do not see how he can make his home with the Oriental Orthodox.

I say that there were Nine, not Ten. I never spoke of Ten. That must have been someone else you were speaking with.

And my home is with them because I only accept the first three of those nine as councils of the Christian Church. That some OO insist on there only having been 3 (or sometimes 4 with Ephesus II) Ecumenical Councils appears to be a novelty and is based on a misled understanding of what Ecumenical meant. What is really important is that we only accept the first three of your nine as having been orthodox councils of the Church. As such, I would say that I do not accept your later 6 ECs.
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
Irish Hermit
Kibernetski Kaludjer
Warned
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Posts: 10,991


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us


« Reply #155 on: May 14, 2010, 12:52:41 AM »

deusveritasest, I do find it rather odd that you, who was received into the EO church, then after less than a year IIRC, decided that the OO was the more correct path to take. That, in itself, is your choice, of course. So I really can't understand the motivation behind your posts on this thread.

It's not ultimately relevant to my faith. Whether Chalcedon or Constantinople II or Constantinople III, etc. are ecumenical is not relevant to my faith as I do not recognize them as council of the Church of Christ. I just think that my understanding of what an ecumenical council is is more historically evident, and for Irish Hermit to react so strongly against what I am saying as such is slightly annoying.

What is slightly annoying is that someone who briefly passed through Orthodoxy and is now exploring his options thinks he has some authority to speak for us.

Do you know what destroyed your credibility?  When you asked in Message 144 "Why is it significant for any of this to exist?"
http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php/topic,27053.msg434316.html#msg434316

That question showed plainly that in your brief time in Orthodoxy you imbibed very little of the Orthodox ethos.  If you had imbibed it you would know the import of conciliar acceptance, liturgical commemoration and iconographic witness.
Logged
deusveritasest
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: None
Jurisdiction: None
Posts: 7,528



WWW
« Reply #156 on: May 14, 2010, 01:01:31 AM »

What is slightly annoying is that someone who briefly passed through Orthodoxy and is now exploring his options thinks he has some authority to speak for us.

I am not attempting to speak for you. You can claim whatever number you want of how many ecumenical councils you think there were. I am disagreeing with your analysis. I am not attempting to speak for you, quite the contrary.

That question showed plainly that in your brief time in Orthodoxy you imbibed very little of the Orthodox ethos.  If you had imbibed it you would know the import of conciliar acceptance, liturgical commemoration and iconographic witness.

That only applies if you are continuing to fail to accept that I am meaning something different by "ecumenical". Those are all processes of councils recognized by the Christian Church. I am not speaking of that. I am speaking of council recognized by the Roman Empire. And the Roman Empire does not necessarily require any such processes for ratification. It was only concerned with what will best politically unite the Empire.
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
Irish Hermit
Kibernetski Kaludjer
Warned
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Posts: 10,991


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us


« Reply #157 on: May 14, 2010, 01:45:44 AM »


That only applies if you are continuing to fail to accept that I am meaning something different by "ecumenical".


Under the circumstances of this discussion I am not sure if the rather idiosyncratic meaning which you assign to "ecumenical" has any importance.

What is important is the meaning the Church assigns to it.

This is clearly distinct from your definition since we have all of the Orthodox Churches in preparation for the upcoming Great and Holy Council.  The Churches speak of it as being, possibly, the Eighth Ecumenical Council.   I realise that this would be a false application of "Ecumenical" in your view but the hierarchs do not agree with you.
Logged
deusveritasest
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: None
Jurisdiction: None
Posts: 7,528



WWW
« Reply #158 on: May 14, 2010, 01:48:23 AM »

I was thinking of the Patristic era meaning of Ecumenical. That seems that it would be the most significant to me: what people meant by a council being ecumenical when they defined it as such.
« Last Edit: May 14, 2010, 01:49:15 AM by deusveritasest » 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
PeterTheAleut
The Right Blowhard Peter the Furtive of Yetts O'Muckhart
Section Moderator
Protospatharios
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 31,441


EXTERMINATE!


« Reply #159 on: May 14, 2010, 02:22:48 AM »

And here we have a couple of people going round and round on which councils are ecumenical and which are not because they can't even agree on what conditions are necessary for a council to be regarded as ecumenical.

We have two people arguing that the only definitions that matter to them are those decided by the Church, yet it's obvious that they talk past each other with their totally different definitions of who constitutes the Church.
« Last Edit: May 14, 2010, 02:23:15 AM by PeterTheAleut » Logged
Irish Hermit
Kibernetski Kaludjer
Warned
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Posts: 10,991


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us


« Reply #160 on: May 14, 2010, 02:27:03 AM »

And here we have a couple of people going round and round on which councils are ecumenical and which are not because they can't even agree on what conditions are necessary for a council to be regarded as ecumenical.

We have two people arguing that the only definitions that matter to them are those decided by the Church, yet it's obvious that they talk past each other with their totally different definitions of who constitutes the Church.

Thank you, Peter.  You have stated the problem exactly.  We do not agree on the conditions necessary for an ecumenical council and we do not agree what constitutes the Church.
Logged
Irish Hermit
Kibernetski Kaludjer
Warned
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Posts: 10,991


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us


« Reply #161 on: May 14, 2010, 02:38:12 AM »

Father Georges Florovsky wrote a monograph on the infallibility of Ecumenical Councils and the manner in which they are received by the Church.

Can anyone lay their hands on this?
« Last Edit: May 14, 2010, 02:38:48 AM by Irish Hermit » Logged
deusveritasest
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: None
Jurisdiction: None
Posts: 7,528



WWW
« Reply #162 on: May 14, 2010, 02:47:40 AM »

And here we have a couple of people going round and round on which councils are ecumenical and which are not because they can't even agree on what conditions are necessary for a council to be regarded as ecumenical.

Yes.

We have two people arguing that the only definitions that matter to them are those decided by the Church, yet it's obvious that they talk past each other with their totally different definitions of who constitutes the Church.

Not so much. I am looking to the definition of those Fathers who we both recognize.
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
Irish Hermit
Kibernetski Kaludjer
Warned
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Posts: 10,991


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us


« Reply #163 on: May 14, 2010, 02:57:41 AM »

And here we have a couple of people going round and round on which councils are ecumenical and which are not because they can't even agree on what conditions are necessary for a council to be regarded as ecumenical.

I suppose there is one obvious solution:-  Ask your bishop!   laugh
Logged
PeterTheAleut
The Right Blowhard Peter the Furtive of Yetts O'Muckhart
Section Moderator
Protospatharios
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 31,441


EXTERMINATE!


« Reply #164 on: May 14, 2010, 04:21:27 AM »

And here we have a couple of people going round and round on which councils are ecumenical and which are not because they can't even agree on what conditions are necessary for a council to be regarded as ecumenical.

I suppose there is one obvious solution:-  Ask your bishop!   laugh
What if I decide to change bishops? Wink
Logged
Irish Hermit
Kibernetski Kaludjer
Warned
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Posts: 10,991


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us


« Reply #165 on: May 14, 2010, 04:38:21 AM »

And here we have a couple of people going round and round on which councils are ecumenical and which are not because they can't even agree on what conditions are necessary for a council to be regarded as ecumenical.

I suppose there is one obvious solution:-  Ask your bishop!   laugh
What if I decide to change bishops? Wink

Ask the new one. It's part of their job description to advise the flock.  After all they have to swear true allegiance to the Seven Councils when they are consecrated, so they must have some idea what that's about.
Logged
PeterTheAleut
The Right Blowhard Peter the Furtive of Yetts O'Muckhart
Section Moderator
Protospatharios
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 31,441


EXTERMINATE!


« Reply #166 on: May 14, 2010, 04:46:45 AM »

And here we have a couple of people going round and round on which councils are ecumenical and which are not because they can't even agree on what conditions are necessary for a council to be regarded as ecumenical.

I suppose there is one obvious solution:-  Ask your bishop!   laugh
What if I decide to change bishops? Wink

Ask the new one. It's part of their job description to advise the flock.  After all they have to swear true allegiance to the Seven Councils when they are consecrated, so they must have some idea what that's about.
But what if I were to submit to the authority of a bishop who doesn't recognize the Seven Councils?  Let's say... an OO bishop?
Logged
Irish Hermit
Kibernetski Kaludjer
Warned
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Posts: 10,991


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us


« Reply #167 on: May 14, 2010, 04:51:35 AM »

Consecration of a bishop: The Third Confession of Faith:

"In this my confession of the holy faith, I promise to observe the Canons and teachings of the Seven Ecumenical Councils...."

[Note:  Please indicate in advance if you believe in Eight or Nine of Ten Councils so that we may reword this.]
Logged
Irish Hermit
Kibernetski Kaludjer
Warned
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Posts: 10,991


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us


« Reply #168 on: May 14, 2010, 04:58:57 AM »


But what if I were to submit to the authority of a bishop who doesn't recognize the Seven Councils?  Let's say... an OO bishop?

For those who are really scrupulous about their Councils I recommend the Anglican religion:

Article 21 of the 39 Articles:
General Councils... forasmuch as they be an assembly of men, whereof all be not governed with the Spirit and word of God, they may err and sometime have erred, even in things pertaining to God. Wherefore things ordained by them as necessary to salvation have neither strength nor authority, unless it may be declared that they be taken out of Holy Scripture.
Logged
Cymbyz
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Greek Orthodox Archdiocese of America
Posts: 496



« Reply #169 on: May 14, 2010, 01:38:04 PM »

The cited Anglican definition begs the questions of Sola Scriptura and hermeneutics; it resolves nothing.
« Last Edit: May 14, 2010, 01:38:58 PM by Cymbyz » Logged

The end of the world
is as near as the day of your death;
watch and pray.
 
 Yahoo! & WLM ID: Owen
Irish Hermit
Kibernetski Kaludjer
Warned
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Posts: 10,991


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us


« Reply #170 on: May 14, 2010, 01:44:09 PM »

The cited Anglican definition begs the questions of Sola Scriptura and hermeneutics; it resolves nothing.

I believe you are quite right but I was just offering a rather pragmatic resolution to the question Peter posed, and a little tongue in cheek. (Should have popped a smiley in to make that more clear.)
Logged
militantsparrow
Laurence
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Antiochian Orthodox Christian Archdiocese of North America
Posts: 614


militantsparrow
« Reply #171 on: May 14, 2010, 08:51:47 PM »

So I guess the answer to my original post is, "It depends on who you ask."  Smiley
Logged

"Yeah, the sparrow hath found an house..." -Psalm 84:3
Irish Hermit
Kibernetski Kaludjer
Warned
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Posts: 10,991


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us


« Reply #172 on: May 15, 2010, 01:38:45 AM »

/\

Dear Sparrow,

I don't think that anybody can answer your question in the OP about finding the canons which support the two bolded points below.  Why?  Nobody has the foggiest idea that these points were ever made at the Seventh Ecumenical Council.  If you could give us a reference to the Council and where these points can be found, that would be a help. I think that the author whom you quote has made this up or been misled by something he has read.

So, the immediate answer to your question is: No!  We cannot supply any canons which support your bolded points.

I just discovered the document,
The Role of the Bishop of Rome in the Communion of the Church in the First Millennium.

I realize it is not official yet (or maybe ever), but there are a few things in the letter which strike me as problematic. The description of what is necessary for a council to be considered ecumenical seems to go against my previous understanding of either side.

Quote
27. The clearest description of the conditions necessary for a council to be regarded as ecumenical was given by the seventh Ecumenical Council (Nicaea II, 787), the final council to be recognised as ecumenical both in the East and in the West:
– it has to be accepted by the heads (proedroi) of the churches, and they have to be in agreement (symphonia) with it;
– the pope of Rome has to be a "co-operator" or "fellow worker" (synergos) with the council;
– the patriarchs of the East have to be "in agreement" (symphronountes);

– the teaching of the council must be in accord with that of previous ecumenical councils;
– the council must be given its own specific number, so as to be placed in the sequence of councils accepted by the Church as a whole...

I looked over the Ravenna document and the documents from Nicaea II, but neither seemed to express these points as succinctly. Does anyone know where I can find the cannons which support the two bolded points above--especially the necessity for the patriarchs of the East to be in agreement.

Thank you and God bless.
« Last Edit: May 15, 2010, 01:40:26 AM by Irish Hermit » Logged
Cosmos
Member
***
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Antiochian Archdiocese of North America
Posts: 140


أيها الرب يسوع المسيح ابن الله, إرحمني أنا الخاطئ


« Reply #173 on: May 15, 2010, 01:49:47 AM »

Here's a link to the documents produced by the Seventh Ecumenical Council for whomever may wish to read them. Happy hunting!

http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf214.xvi.i.html

Cosmos
Logged

Κύριε Ἰησοῦ Χριστέ, ἐλέησόν με!
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: 37,124



« Reply #174 on: May 15, 2010, 09:14:25 AM »

So I guess the answer to my original post is, "It depends on who you ask."  Smiley
Like  most existential questions, yes.

I learned that in Islamic studies: Muslims have scripture.  Jews have scripture.  Buddhists have scripture. Hindus have scripture. And we have the Scriptures.  But the idea of what scripture should look like is predetermined by which religion you choose, which compares its idea of Scripture to other scriptures, as opposed to other definitions of scripture.  For example, the Muslims, based on the Quran, believe scripture has to be first person (although the Quran falls short of consistency in this, something the Muslim exegetes spend time on explaining), and hence by definition write off the Epistles as scripture.

As to your original question: the Churches have taken sides on whether a particular Council is Ecumenical or not, not on what makes a Council Ecumenical.  I don't even think the Vatican went on to that second question until Vatican II, their last council they claim is ecumenical. Hence why there lists of councils has changed.
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
militantsparrow
Laurence
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Antiochian Orthodox Christian Archdiocese of North America
Posts: 614


militantsparrow
« Reply #175 on: May 15, 2010, 09:34:11 AM »

/\

Dear Sparrow,

I don't think that anybody can answer your question in the OP about finding the canons which support the two bolded points below.  Why?  Nobody has the foggiest idea that these points were ever made at the Seventh Ecumenical Council.  If you could give us a reference to the Council and where these points can be found, that would be a help. I think that the author whom you quote has made this up or been misled by something he has read.

So, the immediate answer to your question is: No!  We cannot supply any canons which support your bolded points.

Fr. Ambrose, the points are taken from Apostolic Canon 34 which is quoted in the Revenna document http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/pontifical_councils/chrstuni/ch_orthodox_docs/rc_pc_chrstuni_doc_20071013_documento-ravenna_en.html
Logged

"Yeah, the sparrow hath found an house..." -Psalm 84:3
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: 37,124



« Reply #176 on: May 15, 2010, 09:48:12 AM »

/\

Dear Sparrow,

I don't think that anybody can answer your question in the OP about finding the canons which support the two bolded points below.  Why?  Nobody has the foggiest idea that these points were ever made at the Seventh Ecumenical Council.  If you could give us a reference to the Council and where these points can be found, that would be a help. I think that the author whom you quote has made this up or been misled by something he has read.

So, the immediate answer to your question is: No!  We cannot supply any canons which support your bolded points.

Fr. Ambrose, the points are taken from Apostolic Canon 34 which is quoted in the Revenna document http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/pontifical_councils/chrstuni/ch_orthodox_docs/rc_pc_chrstuni_doc_20071013_documento-ravenna_en.html

No, they are not:

Quote
34. It behoves the Bishops of every nation to know the one among them who is the premier or chief, and to recognise him as their head, and to refrain from doing anything superfluous without his advice and approval: but, instead, each of them should do only whatever is necessitated by his own parish and by the territories under him. But let not even such a one do anything without the advice and consent and approval of all. For thus will there be concord, and God will be glorified through the Lord in Holy Spirit, the Father, and the Son, and the Holy Spirit.
http://www.holytrinitymission.org/books/english/cannons_apostles_rudder.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
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: 37,124



« Reply #177 on: May 15, 2010, 09:59:48 AM »

/\

Dear Sparrow,

I don't think that anybody can answer your question in the OP about finding the canons which support the two bolded points below.  Why?  Nobody has the foggiest idea that these points were ever made at the Seventh Ecumenical Council.  If you could give us a reference to the Council and where these points can be found, that would be a help. I think that the author whom you quote has made this up or been misled by something he has read.

So, the immediate answer to your question is: No!  We cannot supply any canons which support your bolded points.

I just discovered the document,
The Role of the Bishop of Rome in the Communion of the Church in the First Millennium.

I realize it is not official yet (or maybe ever), but there are a few things in the letter which strike me as problematic. The description of what is necessary for a council to be considered ecumenical seems to go against my previous understanding of either side.

Quote
27. The clearest description of the conditions necessary for a council to be regarded as ecumenical was given by the seventh Ecumenical Council (Nicaea II, 787), the final council to be recognised as ecumenical both in the East and in the West:
– it has to be accepted by the heads (proedroi) of the churches, and they have to be in agreement (symphonia) with it;
– the pope of Rome has to be a "co-operator" or "fellow worker" (synergos) with the council;
– the patriarchs of the East have to be "in agreement" (symphronountes);

– the teaching of the council must be in accord with that of previous ecumenical councils;
– the council must be given its own specific number, so as to be placed in the sequence of councils accepted by the Church as a whole...

I looked over the Ravenna document and the documents from Nicaea II, but neither seemed to express these points as succinctly. Does anyone know where I can find the cannons which support the two bolded points above--especially the necessity for the patriarchs of the East to be in agreement.

Thank you and God bless.
I have to agree with you Father, the authors, like much of Ravenna, made it up.  What they seem to base it on is the comparison of the Ecumenical Council of Nicea II and the "Headless council" of Hieria of the Iconoclasts.
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
Irish Hermit
Kibernetski Kaludjer
Warned
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Posts: 10,991


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us


« Reply #178 on: May 15, 2010, 10:37:51 AM »

Fr. Ambrose, the points are taken from Apostolic Canon 34 which is quoted in the Revenna document http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/pontifical_councils/chrstuni/ch_orthodox_docs/rc_pc_chrstuni_doc_20071013_documento-ravenna_en.html



Now I have to admit that I am quite lost.

In your OP you say that these points are contained in the Seventh Ecumenical Council.  I could not locate them

Now you say that they are contained in Ravenna 2007, and again I cannot locate them.  Maybe my search thingie is not working well?

Would you please look through the Ravenna Document and maybe give the Paragraph number where these points occur.

Here is Apostolic Canon 34....  I don't see how it supports the points:

"The bishops of every nation must acknowledge him who is first among them and account him as their head, and do nothing of consequence without his consent; but each may do those things only which concern his own parish, and the country places which belong to it. But neither let him (who is the first) do anything without the consent of all; for so there will be unanimity, and God will be glorified through the Lord in the Holy Spirit."


The two points you mention and for which you ask for supporting canons:

– the pope of Rome has to be a "co-operator" or "fellow worker" (synergos) with the council;
– the patriarchs of the East have to be "in agreement" (symphronountes);




Logged
militantsparrow
Laurence
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Antiochian Orthodox Christian Archdiocese of North America
Posts: 614


militantsparrow
« Reply #179 on: May 15, 2010, 10:54:53 AM »

Fr. Ambrose,
I apologize for the confusion. It is no doubt in large part because I myself am confused. In my OP, I quoted a draft document called "The Role of the Bishop of Rome in the Communion of the Church in the First Millennium." This is not my document, but a document that was put together by the International Catholic-Orthodox dialogue. My OP quoted that document as stating:

Quote
27. The clearest description of the conditions necessary for a council to be regarded as ecumenical was given by the seventh Ecumenical Council (Nicaea II, 787), the final council to be recognised as ecumenical both in the East and in the West:
– it has to be accepted by the heads (proedroi) of the churches, and they have to be in agreement (symphonia) with it;
– the pope of Rome has to be a "co-operator" or "fellow worker" (synergos) with the council;
– the patriarchs of the East have to be "in agreement" (symphronountes);
– the teaching of the council must be in accord with that of previous ecumenical councils;
– the council must be given its own specific number, so as to be placed in the sequence of councils accepted by the Church as a whole...

Please note that I am not making the above points in my OP, but merely asking where the document drafters are getting these points.

In my OP, I was asking:

Quote
I looked over the Ravenna document and the documents from Nicaea II, but neither seemed to express these points as succinctly. Does anyone know where I can find the cannons which support the two bolded points above--especially the necessity for the patriarchs of the East to be in agreement.

Several people responded on this and other boards that the above quotes are probably extrapolations of Apostolic Canon 34. But nobody reads Canon 34 do be a pure source for the above points. And as ialmisry has pointed out to me, the Apostolic Canon reads quite differently then it is often quoted.

So, I guess I am back to my original confused state.
Logged

"Yeah, the sparrow hath found an house..." -Psalm 84:3
Irish Hermit
Kibernetski Kaludjer
Warned
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Posts: 10,991


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us


« Reply #180 on: May 15, 2010, 11:30:27 AM »

/\  Now I am with you.   Grin

You are quoting those points from the Cyprus 2009 document which has never been officially released.  Except that the wonderful journalist Sandro Magister somehow got hold of it and published it
http://chiesa.espresso.repubblica.it/articolo/1341814?eng=y

For this naughtinees he was rapped over the knuckles by Cardinal Kasper
http://scecclesia.wordpress.com/2010/01/27/sandro-magister-rapped-over-the-knuckles-by-cardinal-kasper/

The document is coming up for consideration again, in September, by the Catholic-Orthodox participants of the International Theological Dialogue.  Even then it won't be officially released since the Orthodox bishops were not at all happy with it and have issued instructions it is not to be approved or published unto they have approved it (or otherwise!)
Logged
Irish Hermit
Kibernetski Kaludjer
Warned
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Posts: 10,991


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us


« Reply #181 on: May 16, 2010, 07:18:03 AM »

Are there Seven, Eight, Nine or Ten Ecumenical Councils?

The Patriarchal Encyclical of 1895
A Reply to the Papal Encyclical of Pope Leo XIII, on Reunion


http://www.orthodoxinfo.com/ecumenism/encyc_1895.aspx

... if only the Bishop of Rome would ...return to the basis of the seven holy Ecumenical Councils..

...there can be no such safe common principle and basis other than the teaching of the Gospel and of the seven holy Ecumenical Councils

So then the one holy, catholic and apostolic Church of the seven Ecumenical Councils

...remaining faithful to the apostolic tradition and the practice of the seven Ecumenical Councils, 'stand fast, contending for the common profession, the

The one holy, catholic and apostolic Church of the seven Ecumenical Councils, according to the example of our Savior

The one holy, catholic and apostolic Church of the seven Ecumenical Councils held that the precious gifts

The one holy, catholic and apostolic Church of the seven Ecumenical Councils, following the Lord's command

The one holy, catholic and apostolic Church of the seven Ecumenical Councils, walking according to the divinely inspired teaching

The one holy, catholic and apostolic Church of the seven Ecumenical Councils teaches that

The orthodox Eastern Church then justly glories in Christ as being the Church of the seven Ecumenical Councils
Logged
militantsparrow
Laurence
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Antiochian Orthodox Christian Archdiocese of North America
Posts: 614


militantsparrow
« Reply #182 on: May 16, 2010, 06:56:31 PM »

Are there Seven, Eight, Nine or Ten Ecumenical Councils?

The Patriarchal Encyclical of 1895
A Reply to the Papal Encyclical of Pope Leo XIII, on Reunion


http://www.orthodoxinfo.com/ecumenism/encyc_1895.aspx

... if only the Bishop of Rome would ...return to the basis of the seven holy Ecumenical Councils..

...there can be no such safe common principle and basis other than the teaching of the Gospel and of the seven holy Ecumenical Councils

So then the one holy, catholic and apostolic Church of the seven Ecumenical Councils

...remaining faithful to the apostolic tradition and the practice of the seven Ecumenical Councils, 'stand fast, contending for the common profession, the

The one holy, catholic and apostolic Church of the seven Ecumenical Councils, according to the example of our Savior

The one holy, catholic and apostolic Church of the seven Ecumenical Councils held that the precious gifts

The one holy, catholic and apostolic Church of the seven Ecumenical Councils, following the Lord's command

The one holy, catholic and apostolic Church of the seven Ecumenical Councils, walking according to the divinely inspired teaching

The one holy, catholic and apostolic Church of the seven Ecumenical Councils teaches that

The orthodox Eastern Church then justly glories in Christ as being the Church of the seven Ecumenical Councils

From an outsider's point of view, I am definitely under the opinion that the Eastern Orthodox Churches as a whole recognize 7 ecumenical councils--nothing less and nothing more. As is always the case with anything, some disagree, but the consensus is quite clear.
Logged

"Yeah, the sparrow hath found an house..." -Psalm 84:3
PeterTheAleut
The Right Blowhard Peter the Furtive of Yetts O'Muckhart
Section Moderator
Protospatharios
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 31,441


EXTERMINATE!


« Reply #183 on: May 16, 2010, 07:03:20 PM »

Are there Seven, Eight, Nine or Ten Ecumenical Councils?

The Patriarchal Encyclical of 1895
A Reply to the Papal Encyclical of Pope Leo XIII, on Reunion


http://www.orthodoxinfo.com/ecumenism/encyc_1895.aspx

... if only the Bishop of Rome would ...return to the basis of the seven holy Ecumenical Councils..

...there can be no such safe common principle and basis other than the teaching of the Gospel and of the seven holy Ecumenical Councils

So then the one holy, catholic and apostolic Church of the seven Ecumenical Councils

...remaining faithful to the apostolic tradition and the practice of the seven Ecumenical Councils, 'stand fast, contending for the common profession, the

The one holy, catholic and apostolic Church of the seven Ecumenical Councils, according to the example of our Savior

The one holy, catholic and apostolic Church of the seven Ecumenical Councils held that the precious gifts

The one holy, catholic and apostolic Church of the seven Ecumenical Councils, following the Lord's command

The one holy, catholic and apostolic Church of the seven Ecumenical Councils, walking according to the divinely inspired teaching

The one holy, catholic and apostolic Church of the seven Ecumenical Councils teaches that

The orthodox Eastern Church then justly glories in Christ as being the Church of the seven Ecumenical Councils

From an outsider's point of view, I am definitely under the opinion that the Eastern Orthodox Churches as a whole recognize 7 ecumenical councils--nothing less and nothing more. As is always the case with anything, some disagree, but the consensus is quite clear.
So, what is it that makes these seven, and none others, ecumenical?
Logged
militantsparrow
Laurence
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Antiochian Orthodox Christian Archdiocese of North America
Posts: 614


militantsparrow
« Reply #184 on: May 16, 2010, 07:11:33 PM »

So, what is it that makes these seven, and none others, ecumenical?

It's hard for me to tell based on the diverse responses from everyone, but here is my opinion in a nutshell. Everyone in the Eastern Orthodox Churches acknowledge these seven councils as ecumenical. Not everyone agrees on anything more than that.
Logged

"Yeah, the sparrow hath found an house..." -Psalm 84:3
Irish Hermit
Kibernetski Kaludjer
Warned
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Posts: 10,991


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us


« Reply #185 on: May 16, 2010, 07:22:09 PM »

Are there Seven, Eight, Nine or Ten Ecumenical Councils?

The Patriarchal Encyclical of 1895
A Reply to the Papal Encyclical of Pope Leo XIII, on Reunion


http://www.orthodoxinfo.com/ecumenism/encyc_1895.aspx

... if only the Bishop of Rome would ...return to the basis of the seven holy Ecumenical Councils..

...there can be no such safe common principle and basis other than the teaching of the Gospel and of the seven holy Ecumenical Councils

So then the one holy, catholic and apostolic Church of the seven Ecumenical Councils

...remaining faithful to the apostolic tradition and the practice of the seven Ecumenical Councils, 'stand fast, contending for the common profession, the

The one holy, catholic and apostolic Church of the seven Ecumenical Councils, according to the example of our Savior

The one holy, catholic and apostolic Church of the seven Ecumenical Councils held that the precious gifts

The one holy, catholic and apostolic Church of the seven Ecumenical Councils, following the Lord's command

The one holy, catholic and apostolic Church of the seven Ecumenical Councils, walking according to the divinely inspired teaching

The one holy, catholic and apostolic Church of the seven Ecumenical Councils teaches that

The orthodox Eastern Church then justly glories in Christ as being the Church of the seven Ecumenical Councils

From an outsider's point of view, I am definitely under the opinion that the Eastern Orthodox Churches as a whole recognize 7 ecumenical councils--nothing less and nothing more. As is always the case with anything, some disagree, but the consensus is quite clear.
So, what is it that makes these seven, and none others, ecumenical?

I suppose the fact that my bishops say so is enough for me, along with hundreds of other bishops with whom they are in fraternal communion.
Logged
Cosmos