World View

[Father Peter]

When has she declared that there are seven? Using which organ?

The Patriarchs of Constantinople, Jerusalem and Antioch have declared there are 8. Which other organ other than the voice of the hierarchs exists to gainsay them?

For the rest, this is just wasting words. Everything you say has an analogue in the OO so its pointless saying it. I strive hard not to descend to polemics but I am sensing a frustration in my spirit that I don't want to feed. I think I'll go do something positive and find some people to communicate and dialogue with.

[Linus7]

peterfarrington: I think I'll go do something positive and find some people to communicate and dialogue with.

Who's trying to stop you?

[Mor Ephrem]

The point is that the Church has not yet declared that there are eight or nine ecumenical councils, but she has declared that there are seven of them.

But who is "The Church" in this case?  In the one EO Church, one can hear various bishops and, evidently, local Churches (reference was made somewhere in this thread or elsewhere to the official website of a particular Church confessing eight or nine, I forget which) confess variously seven, eight, or nine councils as ecumenical.  How would "the Church" declare a definitive number of councils?    

You accept only three and belong to a sect which separated itself from the Church in the middle of the fifth century.

I think you are wrong, but you are certainly entitled to hold this opinion, and for the sake of argument, I will assume this myself.  Tell me, what is necessary for us to rectify this situation?  Certainly, since we have the Orthodox Faith in Christological matters (you yourself found nothing heretical in Peter's confession of faith some time ago, IIRC), the only thing left is to recognise the remaining ecumenical councils, according to the EO position, right?  But how many are there?  I may be mistaken in this perception, but it seems "Greeks" are more likely to recognise eight or nine, while "Russians" only seven.  And yet, you remain in full communion.  So I wonder why it is that you insist the OO absolutely recognise as ecumenical the post-431 councils as ecumenical, when it is not clear how many of those councils there were.  You say seven; others say nine.  I suppose you could say that the one thing all EO agree on is the status of the first seven, and so that is the only "necessary" amount needed for reunion, but then what about the other two?  If you all can be in full communion now while variously recognising seven, eight, or nine, why can't we continue to recognise three, while agreeing with the content of the other four, five, or six?  Obviously in the former case, the content of the faith is the same; why does the latter not also imply the same?  Or is there something indeed heretical with our confession?  This is the only case I can think of where it might actually be necessary for EO to demand we recognise a particular council(s): in order to refute heresy.  So where is the heresy in the OO confession?  

I'm beginning to wonder how easy it will be to dialogue with the EO if they don't have important things like this settled for themselves.  I suspect there will always be those who are against EO-OO reunion because we still don't recognise the correct number of councils (8/9), assuming we recognise seven.  What if we go with nine?  Does anyone know where "the (EO) Church" has definitively stated the number of ecumenical councils that it recognises?  Is there even such a number?  It's funny how traditionalist EO on the internet go on about how the "heretical Non-Chalcedonians" won't submit to the ecumenical councils, but if a "heretical Non-Chalcedonian" asks how many there are in the Eastern Orthodox Church, there seems to be no agreement.  How can one dialogue in this situation?        

+++

http://www.geocities.com/trvalentine/orthodox/synodschart.html

Mentions not only nine ecumenical councils, but a Pan-Orthodox Synod which "called itself Ecumenical".  

http://www.geocities.com/trvalentine/orthodox/dragas_eighth.html

At least eight?  

http://www.geocities.com/trvalentine/orthodox/8-9synods.html

At least nine?

[Linus7]

Mor Ephrem -

You raise some legitimate points.

It seems that the real differences between the EO and OO are not Christological (and never were) but ecclesiological.

Conciliarism is a central tenet of EOxy.

I don't see how one can miss that.

Yet the very strength of EOxy - the autonomy of its local churches - is also its weakness, in that EOxy lacks a regular central authority that can speak for the Church.

The only central authority the EOC recognizes is a council of the whole Church, which can declare which of the other councils are ecumenical and therefore authoritative.

But can it declare itself ecumenical and authoritative?

Obviously, no, at least not with any certainty of acceptance.

What then?

Of what value are its decrees?

This is where conciliarism grows a bit weak and vague. The consensus seems to be, at least from what I have read, that one must wait for however long it takes - perhaps hundreds of years - before the light dawns and the Church agrees that a particular council is indeed ecumenical.

This seems to be regarded as something of a mystery rather than as a clearly defined process.

It leaves us sure of only one thing: the past.

But the past, while providing the foundation for present action, cannot answer all present questions with enough specificity to prevent conflicts and solve problems in the here and now.

Because we cannot know whether or not a council is really ecumenical until its "mystery" resolves itself, we seem to be left without an authoritative voice in the present.

Patriarchs and bishops can speak with authority, but we know they can err and have erred in the past.

It can be argued that we all know what the Apostolic Deposit of Faith is, and that the Church is infallible when she speaks in accordance with it.

But that is a circular argument, because obviously one must assume up front that he knows what the Deposit is in all its particulars.

Such knowledge has obviously not prevented major schisms in the past and may not prevent them in the future.

[Father Peter]

How is conciliarism not a central tenet of the OO?

On what do you base this latest accusation? The rest of your post is interesting, but why stick in another jab?

And in fact Christology is the central reason for the human divisions between us. What is becoming clear is that over a period of some years between 431 and 553 the majority position among the Chalcedonians, and of course it is anachronistic to speak of Chalcedonians before 451, became centered on a more Cyrilline locus.

Therefore after 553 it should have been possible for a reconciliation to take place based on Constantinople II, but Chalcedon and persecution got in the way. Chalcedon needed Constantinople II to explain some of the ambiguities.

By that time both sides had taken entrenched positions and were no longer listening to each other. That is why Severus of Antioch, my dear patron, was accused of being a Nestorian and a Eutychian at the same time, an accusation dismissed as bogus by Fr John Romanides, Sellers, Grillmeier and many, many more - and me.

Christology was always key. But it is only now that we are able to start listening to each other, or those of us that will listen. And we find that a difference of terminology does not mean a difference of faith.

As to the ecclesiological issues, well they remain. How can a council be considered to have been received when it was rejected by half the Church? The questions that should be asked are 'what do those who reject it find most objectionable and why?' and 'what is required for us (Chalcedonians) to explain how we understand the council'. A polemical exchange of slogans is neither Orthodox nor Christian as we stand at this unparralleled opportunity which God has given for understanding and reconciliation.

[Mor Ephrem]

This is where conciliarism grows a bit weak and vague. The consensus seems to be, at least from what I have read, that one must wait for however long it takes - perhaps hundreds of years - before the light dawns and the Church agrees that a particular council is indeed ecumenical.

This seems to be regarded as something of a mystery rather than as a clearly defined process.

It leaves us sure of only one thing: the past.

But the past, while providing the foundation for present action, cannot answer all present questions with enough specificity to prevent conflicts and solve problems in the here and now.

Because we cannot know whether or not a council is really ecumenical until its "mystery" resolves itself, we seem to be left without an authoritative voice in the present.

Ah.  But then Peter's question is a good one.  Chalcedon was a council rejected by a good portion of the Church.  And it wasn't rejected because Oriental Orthodox reject conciliarity (a ridiculous notion!), but because of Christological concerns.  If those Christological concerns are eliminated now (because both sides have come to realise that the other is saying the same thing, albeit differently), and if conciliarity wasn't a problem either, then how is Chalcedon ecumenical?  It was not received by the whole Church, even now after these fifteen hundred years or so.  I suppose that if the Oriental Orthodox accept it, it could become truly ecumenical at that point, but how is it ecumenical now?  Of course, the same could be said about the later EO councils as well.  

The only thing that I can see that would justify the EO position that Chalcedon is an ecumenical council now is to say that the OO are heretics and thus outside the Church.  But if they were/are not (and we seem to be in agreement on that), then what?  If they are not heretics, then they are surely in the Church,  and the rejection of Chalcedon by a good portion of the Church, I would think, renders it not ecumenical, at least for now.  

As you say, we can only really be sure of one thing: the past, and that is why I think the OO position makes more sense.  We confess the faith of the Holy Fathers of the Three Sacred, Holy, and Ecumenical Councils of Nicaea, Constantinople, and Ephesus.  Substantially, it is the same faith which the EO confess, even in their later councils.  But are those later councils ecumenical?  Can't be sure of that, since the whole Church hasn't accepted them as such.  So for now, there's only Three we can be sure of.  When and if the later councils are accepted as ecumenical by the whole Church, then they will be ecumenical.    But as I see it, the burden of proof is on the Eastern Orthodox who insist on their post-431 councils being recognised as ecumenical to demonstrate how they are such now.

[Linus7]

You two are reading things into what I wrote.

I never said conciliarism is not important to the OO. Frankly, I do not know whether it is important to the OO or not.

Personally, I do not see that Christology - other than a misunderstanding of it - was ever the real issue between the OO and the EO.

The Egyptians rejected Chalcedon because they viewed it as an affront to their national pride through its deposition of their Patriarch of Alexandria, Dioscorus. The Egyptian rejection of Chalcedon was a rejection of Greek hegemony in the Church and harks back to a long history of internecine squabbling and plotting between Alexandria, Antioch, and Constantinople, with plenty of guilt to go around for all three.

Chalcedon is good Christology and contains nothing heretical. The charge that it can be used to justify Nestorianism is ridiculous and was trumped up to provide religious grounds for offense and schism.

To say that half the Church rejected Chalcedon is, I believe, a gross exaggeration.

Even if that were true, how much of "the Church" rejected Nicea I?

How many who called themselves Christians rejected Ephesus 431?

How many of the ecumenical councils have been received right away by all Christians?

Any of them?

The fact that Christology was not really the issue is illustrated by the OO rejection of early EO overtures toward reunion.

The Fifth Council was the Emperor Justinian's attempt to placate the OO and bring them back into the Church.

If Christology was really the problem, that should have done the trick.

But it didn't . . . because the Copts and other OO did not like the Byzantines and by that time had their own church going.

Wish I had more time. There is a lot more I could say.

[Αριστοκλής]

Linus7,
As much as I am sympathetic to the "Oriental Orthodox" and wish not to brow-beat them, your post above is historically very accurate. PT is also accurate in much of what he says. Perhaps you both are talking past each other?
Demetri

[Father Peter]

Linus is just plain wrong. I'm afraid his posts are not historically accurate at all.

I have read a great many of the writings of the OO Fathers from the 5th-7th centuries and the deposition of St Dioscorus is not an issue at all. The issue is always, in these writings, that Chalcedon leaves the way open for Nestorianism. This seems to me to be a fact, despite the actual Christology of the majority of Easterns at the time, since it is a matter of historical fact that Chalcedonian monks in Constantinople DID keep a feast of Nestorius, and the Three Chapters were received almost universally in the West such that as soon as Vigilius started showing any willingness to oppose them almost all the bishops of the West, and his own personal deacon who later became Pope Pelagius excommunicated him.

It is also a plain fact that for 100 years after the condemnation of the Three Chapters by the non-Chalcedonians those who follwoed Chalcedon did not see any heresy in those documents and teachers, yet when they came to examine them they said that the heresy was plain to see and an affront to all Christians.

Whatever Chalcedon was meant to do it is a plain fact of history that a great many bishops, priests and people believed that the teachings of Theodoret, Theodore and Ibas were consistent with Chalcedon.

I have just purchased a three volume set of writings by the leading bishop of North Africa who wrote strongly supporting the Three Chapters and excommunicating Vigilius. He was a strong supporter of Chalcedon. He considered, as did his fellow bishops who joined in excommunicating Vigilius, that Chalcedon not only allowed these things but had ecumenically received them.

It is plain wrong to say that Dioscurus was ever the issue.

Linus has not read enough history at all. If he had he would know why the OO rejected Chalcedon and why they continued to insist that Chalcedon needed to be dealt with. If he was interested he could ask. There is nothing more irritating than being told what I believe when it is patently false. It means that my opinion doesn't matter at all. Nor that of my fellow Orthodox.

Linus fails to deal with the hundreds of thousands of OO Christians killed by the Byzantines. Of course that had an effect, but throughout the writings of St Severus, even when he had been driven from Antioch and was threatened with having his tongue pulled out, the issue of Dioscorus was not raised. Even when a large proportion of the Alexandrian Synod had been killed it was not an issue with St Timothy either. In fact his writings are full of efforts to deal eirenically with Chalcedonians.

The Alexandrian Church has suffered persecution from Byzantines and then from Muslims for 1500 years. It is to the credit of the Alexandrians that they do not mention the great suffering caused by Byzantine Chalcedonians - but I need to now in the face of revisionist history. Why did the Alexandrians welcome the Arabs who freed them from the persecution of their fellow Christians? Such treatment created a separate jurisdiction, it was the only way to survive efforts to exterminate the Church.

But the cause of the division was Christological, never to do with St Dioscorus.

For the rest I am afraid I don't care what Linus thinks any more. I find his approach the same as I'd expect from a member of ROAC. I feel just now I'd rather see a reconciliation with Roman Catholicism based on Orthodox truth if the majority of the EO think like him. I shall try my hardest not to participate in this discussion any more, especially as Great Lent is soon upon us.

I love the EO very much, but we don't need reconciliation to be Orthodox and if a reconciliation isn't wanted then I guess we'll have to carry on as we are.

[Linus7]

peterfarrington:
Linus is just plain wrong. I'm afraid his posts are not historically accurate at all.

No, Linus disagrees with peterfarrington, and that is the problem peterfarrington has with Linus' posts.

Linus has a degree in history and is a member of Phi Alpha Theta, the international honor society for historians.

peterfarrington: I have read a great many of the writings of the OO Fathers from the 5th-7th centuries and the deposition of St Dioscorus is not an issue at all. The issue is always, in these writings, that Chalcedon leaves the way open for Nestorianism.

What did you expect them to write?

"We started a schism for political reasons and because we don't like Greeks"?

Chalcedon does not leave "the way open for Nestorianism."

To say that it does is a pretext.

peterfarrington: This seems to me to be a fact, despite the actual Christology of the majority of Easterns at the time, since it is a matter of historical fact that Chalcedonian monks in Constantinople DID keep a feast of Nestorius, and the Three Chapters were received almost universally in the West such that as soon as Vigilius started showing any willingness to oppose them almost all the bishops of the West, and his own personal deacon who later became Pope Pelagius excommunicated him.

If Nestorius had some devoted loyalists in Constantinople that is not surprising. After all, he was Patriarch of Constantinople.

But anyone who would keep a feast to him cannot be described as a "Chacledonian" anymore than someone who would celebrate Arius could be called a Trinitarian or a true subscriber to Nicea I.

peterfarrington: It is also a plain fact that for 100 years after the condemnation of the Three Chapters by the non-Chalcedonians those who follwoed Chalcedon did not see any heresy in those documents and teachers, yet when they came to examine them they said that the heresy was plain to see and an affront to all Christians.

Chalcedon does not endorse or approve the Three Chapters.

The human beings Theodoret of Cyrus and Ibas of Edessa were found to be Orthodox.

Theodoret was the author of the Formula of Reunion that was signed by St. Cyril himself.

Dredging up the Three Chapters in order to publicly condemn them was the brainchild of the Emperor Justinian, who hoped that by so doing he could placate the Monophysites and bring them back into the Church.

peterfarrington: Whatever Chalcedon was meant to do it is a plain fact of history that a great many bishops, priests and people believed that the teachings of Theodoret, Theodore and Ibas were consistent with Chalcedon.

I think you greatly exaggerate the importance of the Three Chapters.

Had they been as influential as you seem to think, Nestorius would have never been condemned.

peterfarrington: I have just purchased a three volume set of writings by the leading bishop of North Africa who wrote strongly supporting the Three Chapters and excommunicating Vigilius. He was a strong supporter of Chalcedon. He considered, as did his fellow bishops who joined in excommunicating Vigilius, that Chalcedon not only allowed these things but had ecumenically received them.

He must not have read Chalcedon.

It's Christology is plainly stated and renders Nestorianism impossible.

peterfarrington: It is plain wrong to say that Dioscurus was ever the issue.

Really?

The riots in Egypt following the deposition of Dioscorus, they were inspired by the "latent Nestorianism" of Chalcedon, then?

The Orthodox bishop who was torn to pieces by the mob when he attempted to ascend the chair of the Alexandrian patriarchate, that was because he was cauight reading the Three Chapters?

peterfarrington: Linus has not read enough history at all.

Translation: Linus disagrees with me and I don't like it.

I don't get my history from the BOC web site or the Coptic Church, at any rate.

peterfarrington: If he had he would know why the OO rejected Chalcedon and why they continued to insist that Chalcedon needed to be dealt with. If he was interested he could ask. There is nothing more irritating than being told what I believe when it is patently false. It means that my opinion doesn't matter at all. Nor that of my fellow Orthodox.

The rejection of Chalcedon was largely political, ethnic, and cultural and only partly theological.

I never said anything about what you believe.

I was talking about the original reaction to Chalcedon.

peterfarrington: Linus fails to deal with the hundreds of thousands of OO Christians killed by the Byzantines.

I do not approve of the persecution of anyone because of his religion.

Persecuting the OO was wrong.

But it doesn't make their schism right by default.

peterfarrington: Of course that had an effect, but throughout the writings of St Severus, even when he had been driven from Antioch and was threatened with having his tongue pulled out, the issue of Dioscorus was not raised. Even when a large proportion of the Alexandrian Synod had been killed it was not an issue with St Timothy either. In fact his writings are full of efforts to deal eirenically with Chalcedonians.

Severus became OO Patriarch of Antioch in 512, some 61 years after Chalcedon, and he was a Syrian, not an Egyptian.

Besides, what would you expect him to write?

What would you expect Timothy to write, as well?

"The reason I am in schism is because I don't like Greeks"?

peterfarrington: The Alexandrian Church has suffered persecution from Byzantines and then from Muslims for 1500 years. It is to the credit of the Alexandrians that they do not mention the great suffering caused by Byzantine Chalcedonians - but I need to now in the face of revisionist history. Why did the Alexandrians welcome the Arabs who freed them from the persecution of their fellow Christians? Such treatment created a separate jurisdiction, it was the only way to survive efforts to exterminate the Church.

Religious persecution is always shameful.

The Anabaptists were persecuted, too.

Does that make them right?

The Byzantine Empire was never truly Christian, not in its government, anyway.

BTW, what I have presented is not "revisionist history."

It is mainstrean history.

What you are presenting is a partisan spin on history, with all of the guys in the white hats in your corner, and all of the bad guys on the other side.

peterfarrington: But the cause of the division was Christological, never to do with St Dioscorus.

Not true.

For the Egyptians Dioscorus was extremely important.

The supposed Christological problems with Chalcedon were and are trumped up.

peterfarrington: For the rest I am afraid I don't care what Linus thinks any more. I find his approach the same as I'd expect from a member of ROAC.

I disagree with you, and that's the problem.

If the members of ROAC also disagree with you, then in that I'm with them.

Otherwise you associate me with ROAC in a feeble attempt to insult me.

Oh well.

peterfarrington: I feel just now I'd rather see a reconciliation with Roman Catholicism based on Orthodox truth if the majority of the EO think like him.

I am all for the reunion of Christians in the One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church.

But you seem to want that through our agreement to your version of history.

Ain't gonna happen.

Why?

'Cause you're wrong.

peterfarrington: I shall try my hardest not to participate in this discussion any more, especially as Great Lent is soon upon us.

That sounds good to me.

peterfarrington: I love the EO very much, but we don't need reconciliation to be Orthodox and if a reconciliation isn't wanted then I guess we'll have to carry on as we are.

And I don't really have anything against the OO, either.

If you carry on as you are then there will not be any reconciliation.

You cannot expect us to want a reconciliation based on an admission of your correctness and our error.

We would have to lie to do that.

[Anastasios]

In official capacity....

I would like to remind all posters to remain charitable to one another and that OrthodoxChristianity.net does not take sides on the issue of Chalcedonians vs. Non-Chalcedonians but rather looks at them as two sides of the Orthodox family as per the recent 30 years' worth of dialogue and joint statements.

As part of that, if someone in group A says "point X concerns us," then someone in group B should not say, "no, X should not concern you."  Charity demands that we take the other side's concerns at face value and try to answer them.

At the same time, we must also not try to make one side exclusively the "heroes" and the other side "the victims"...certainly both sides contributed to violence against the other.

The discussion can be quite frutiful if it is carried out with respect and love...

anastasios
Admin

[Anastasios]

speaking as a participant:

Peterfarrington: the idea that the Copts helped and welcomed the Muslims is simply a fable and has been disproven; cf. Hall, Traditional Egyptian Christianity.  The attitude was more of a "so what?"

Also, you should not have compared Linus7 to ROAC. That was very unfair.

Linus7: you are treading close on ad hominem as well; so what if you have a PhD, that doesn't make you right necessarily.  Perhaps it would help if you could tell us what you what sources make you believe that the issue is purely ethnicity?  I am finding that explanation less and less credible as the partisans in the debate were all Greeks not Egyptians or Syrians.  Christology was certainly a problem and to say it wasn't the issue or even the main issue seems skewed to me.

anastasios

[Boswell]

speaking as a participant:

Peterfarrington: the idea that the Copts helped and welcomed the Muslims is simply a fable and has been disproven; cf. Hall, Traditional Egyptian Christianity.  The attitude was more of a "so what?"

Also, you should not have compared Linus7 to ROAC. That was very unfair.

Linus7: you are treading close on ad hominem as well; so what if you have a PhD, that doesn't make you right necessarily.  Perhaps it would help if you could tell us what you what sources make you believe that the issue is purely ethnicity?  I am finding that explanation less and less credible as the partisans in the debate were all Greeks not Egyptians or Syrians.  Christology was certainly a problem and to say it wasn't the issue or even the main issue seems skewed to me.

anastasios

The majority of Christians in pre-Muslim Egypt were probably not Greeks-outside of Alexandria, there probably wern't many Greeks at all. So, Patriarch so and so might have been Greek, but his followers wern't.

[Boswell]

I think this exchange does confirm a view that I've held for a while-that outside of the ecumenical old boys club between the EO and OO, there's quite a bit of opposition within EOxy, because there is a perception that we (EOxy) are making all the concessions, and the OOs aren't having to move an inch.

anastasios-I think you're going to the opposite extreme and trying to downplay the nationalism (of a type) of the Copts. Eastern Christian collaboration with Islam isn't debunked by any means-Bat Y'eor's works come to mind, as well as St. John Damascene's grandfather, who I believe surrendered a city to the Muslims, or even the Chalcedonian Patriarch of Alexandria, who prematurely surrendered Alexandria.

Boswell

[Anastasios]

Boswell,

You are right that the majority of the populace was not Greek outside of the cities but how many of the people in the countryside were even Christian yet? Full Christianization did not occur until perhaps as late as 500-600 AD, I have read in various places.

I'm not denying that nationalism did eventually come into it but I don't think it's the main point.

As far as collaboration pro/con; I think that to say they openly helped the Muslims is debatable and moreso were concerned with saving their own lives (which is fine with me).  Some authors make it out like the Copts went out and welcomed the Muslims which certainly didn't happen.

anastasios

[Mor Ephrem]

I think this exchange does confirm a view that I've held for a while-that outside of the ecumenical old boys club between the EO and OO, there's quite a bit of opposition within EOxy, because there is a perception that we (EOxy) are making all the concessions, and the OOs aren't having to move an inch.

Interesting, because I've never seen it as EOxy making concessions; from my vantage point, I've thought the reverse was the case.  You guys insist on the recognition as ecumenical of post-431 councils as a condition for reunion.  What concessions does EOxy see itself as making in this dialogue?

[Linus7]

Interesting, because I've never seen it as EOxy making concessions; from my vantage point, I've thought the reverse was the case.  You guys insist on the recognition as ecumenical of post-431 councils as a condition for reunion.  What concessions does EOxy see itself as making in this dialogue?  

Honestly, I don't mean any offense, but, if we EO truly believe that the EOC is the Church, why would we see any need for concessions?

Could it be possible that very sincere EO view concessions on the ecumenical councils and on the saints as a departure from the truth and therefore too big a sacrifice?

After all, there have been reunion attempts before, and most of them involved EO compromises that only resulted in internal strife and confusion; they failed to reconcile the OO.

A thing that I find rather perplexing is the refrain, "It [the schism] was all about Christology."

One usually finds that accompanied by the statement, "We all
share the same faith."

Well, how can the schism really be about Christology if we all share the same faith?

Tell me the schism was about a misunderstanding over various christological terms, tell me it was about politics, ethnicity, and culture; then I can understand it when someone says, "We all share the same faith."

But if the schism was over real differences in Christology, then we must not share the same faith.

Or perhaps the OO maintain that we did not share the same faith at the time of the schism (451), but that we do now?

If that is the case, who changed?

[Mor Ephrem]

Honestly, I don't mean any offense, but, if we EO truly believe that the EOC is the Church, why would we see any need for concessions?

Could it be possible that very sincere EO view concessions on the ecumenical councils and on the saints as a departure from the truth and therefore too big a sacrifice?

I am not saying that EOxy should see a need to make any concessions, nor am I denying that there are very sincere EO who "view concessions on the ecumenical councils and on the saints as a departure from the truth and therefore too big a sacrifice".  Boswell mentioned a perception in the EO world that the Eastern Orthodox Church is the one making all the concessions in the EO-OO dialogue, and the Oriental Orthodox "aren't having to move an inch".  All I want to know is what concessions has the Eastern Orthodox Church made in this dialogue?  To my knowledge, while the results of the Joint Commission have been accepted by the Oriental Orthodox Churches, they haven't even been accepted/received by all of the Eastern Orthodox Churches, let alone "EOxy" making concessions on the councils and/or saints.  I am only curious as to what concessions Eastern Orthodox men and women see their own church as making in order to further along the dialogue, while the Oriental Orthodox are seen as not reciprocating in this process.

[Tags:]

OrthodoxChristianity.net > Moderated Forums > Other Topics > Topic: World View