No Ecumenical Councils for 1,000 Years

[Fish and Bread]

How does Eastern Orthodoxy account for the fact that it hasn't held any councils which is claims as ecumenical for 1,000 years? Haven't there been major heresies to denounce? Protestantism, new-age theology, how to deal with new technologies, etc.? Certainly something raises to the level of justifying an ecumenical council, doesn't it? Why hold ecumenical councils so frequently for some many centuries and they stop cold turkey? I am very curious about this, because I've never heard Eastern Orthodox folks address the question before and don't know what their answer would be. Hopefully, you all can help me out. :)

[choirfiend]

Well, no, there haven't been any major heresies within the Church. There are lots floating around outside it, but can you really name anything that is worldwide and has to do with essential theology that has come up recently? All the stuff the protestant world is debating over and constantly changing over is either A: stuff we took care of a long time ago or B: derived completely from heresies that we condemned long ago.

What would you have use convene over?

Perhaps views on some modern changes in technology would warrant it--but that's been in what, the last 20-30 years? With things constantly changing so quickly, how could/would the Church address it? We take time to clear things up, and even so, that sort of thing isn't a belief WITHIN the Church--it's actions that happen outside of it.

[Fish and Bread]

Well, no, there haven't been any major heresies within the Church. There are lots floating around outside it, but can you really name anything that is worldwide and has to do with essential theology that has come up recently? All the stuff the protestant world is debating over and constantly changing over is either A: stuff we took care of a long time ago or B: derived completely from heresies that we condemned long ago.

What would you have use convene over?

Perhaps views on some modern changes in technology would warrant it--but that's been in what, the last 20-30 years? With things constantly changing so quickly, how could/would the Church address it? We take time to clear things up, and even so, that sort of thing isn't a belief WITHIN the Church--it's actions that happen outside of it.

How about an ecumenical council dealing with the status of the Roman Catholics and Protestants? Should they be rebaptised or not upon entering Eastern Orthodoxy? The answer to this question sometimes even differs from priest to priest in Eastern Orthodoxy. And it's important theologically, because if these non-EO baptisms are not legitimate, then it would be wrong to advise someone not to be rebaptised, but if they are legitimate, the rebaptisms would violate the Nicene Creed. It's an important question to settle. That's just one thing that leaps to mind as a matter that an ecumenical would be a good place to settle that is definitely a church controversy. Overlapping juristictions for bishops in violation of Nicea I is another. So why not hold one?

[Gnisios]

I don't think there is a need for an Ecumenical Council right now. It might produce more problems than it may solve. Just look on the many RC 'Ecumenical Councils' and see what I mean. The Church knows where she stands, and her Tradition is very much alive. As for people of other faiths or contemporary issues, the Church certainly knows how to apply 'economy' and decide according to the situation. Two thousand years of wisdom are more than enough to help us discern God's will and avoid heresies.

I personally believe that a local Synod is more than able to deal with any problem. Of course there are different opinions as you said, but everything is to be seen under a particular light in order to address the situation. It's against Orthodox ethos to become legalistic or put a tag in everything. Case by case is our answer. In addition, I want to underline that Synods meet all time to discuss all kind of problems. Till now this method works fine, and has kept the Orthodox testimony very much in line with the ancient spirit.

[choirfiend]

Well, traditionally, there have been two practices in the Church. This is a course a praxis, and not a matter of dogma. The Councils deal with matters of dogma. The dogma on any sacraments outside the Church is that there are none--none that we have been assured of, most certainly.

If baptism in its nature, brings you into the Church, makes you one of God's body and kingdom, how can a baptism done not by the Church bring you INTO the Church?

Orthodoxy never recognizes any baptisms--in terms of sacramental grace bestowed. In some situations, when these criteria are met: in the name of Father, Son, and Holy Spirit (where the group believes in the Orthodox teaching on the Trinity and doesn't just use these names but means something else), uses flow of water, and baptizes for the remission of sins, then sometimes, the Church recognizes that things were done according to the correct formula. At that point, the person does not have the rite done again, because they already underwent the rite--but it is an empty rite, with no sacramental grace, because how can something be bringing you into the Church if it is not bringing you into THE Church? The anointing, Chrismation, with the reception of the Holy Spirit, fills that empty rite of all it had been missing, because God is certainly not bound by time. So, the Orthodox teaching on baptism outside the Church is very clear--it does not need to be clarified by a council. The praxis regarding the reception of converts has been different according to time and need.

It is much easier to know that a person who was baptised by the RCC underwent a correct form than someone who was, say, from Billy-Jo's Bible Lovin' Temple down the street.

[moses916]

The status of RCC and Protestantism is that they are excommunicated from the Church. There is no big heresies within the Church... there have been some tiny divisions but they don't last. If something like the Great Schism was to happen which won't happen (99.99% unlikely) within the Church than maybe an Ecumenical Council will be needed.

[Happy Orthodox]

Also, the ancient heresies arose in the ground of undefined doctrine. Doctrine was not outlined officially, but just believed by everyone, everywhere, always. This was a much better environment for growing heresies, because no official statement of faith could rebuke them. That is why Ecumenical Councils were called. They officially and definitely outlined what the truth is, and what it is not, so that there was no room for heresies anymore. And those outlines have been effective ever sinse.

[gtsecc]

Why not a council to bring the Coptics back in?

[vanshan]

Why not a council to bring the Coptics back in?

Councils, as has been said, are really held to resolve internal issues within the Church. There are now and have always beens issues that cause some dissentions between regions, but apparently none of these have required the major intervention of a council. There are a few issues that I would like to see ironed out, but it's not up to me. The wheels of Orthodoxy moves slowly, which helps preserve it against changing with each new generation's shifting values/opinions.

We could reach out to those who are separted from us for various reasons such as politics, geography, theological disagreement, but that isn't something for which a council would be held. There are no new heresies under the sun. Many of the false-teachings of the protestants and other factions have already been addressed. What we need now is to preserve the truth we've defended from the beginning, witnessing to the truth. We cannot make someone return home, but we can leave a light on, in hopes they will find their way back.

Basil

[Philip]

The Palamite Councils were only about 650 years ago.

Why not a council to bring the Coptics back in?

It is my understanding that the OO would have to be brought back in, possibly followed by a Council to 'ratify' the method of return.

[Matrona]

Why not a council to bring the Coptics back in?

Because they would have to believe all Orthodox teachings first?

[EricTheRed]

I think a council is what from the Coptics away anyway.

[Happy Orthodox]

They would have to accept all Ecumenical Councils after the 3rd one. And if that happens, there will be no need to be a council discussing their conversion. They will just convert.

[EricTheRed]

From what I hear they will gladly accept all the ones after the 4th. But its still the 4th that is the area where there is still disagreement

[Philip]

From what I hear they will gladly accept all the ones after the 4th. But its still the 4th that is the area where there is still disagreement

This is my understanding.

[InnerPhyre]

For the past 1000 years the West has been riddled with heresy and schism year after year. They held councils against it, sent crusades to crush it (and managed to slaughter thousands of Orthodox in the process), and started monastic orders to stop it.

In the East we have not had nearly the same level of heresy arise. The Protestants are the children of Rome and their beliefs which we would condemn in a new ecumenical council are frequently nothing more than the ancient heresies (nestorianism, montanism, etc) rehashed. No need to start a new council that says that Mary is the Theotokos. We already did that 1500 years ago.

[Nebmaatisus]

The problems of 4:th synod were mainly linquistical errors, or so I have heard. So, what prevents our churches reuniting? A synod to formally announce it might be good, nevertheless. And some jurisdictional problems and issues of thew calendar need discussing, too. No new dogmas are needed, just a few canons.

[Matrona]

The problems of 4:th synod were mainly linquistical errors, or so I have heard.

If the non-Chalcedonians' schism was only about linguistic confusion, they wouldn't have split. Don't rely on hearsay theology to determine who really is or isn't Orthodox---there is a genuine theological difference between the Church and the non-Chalcedonians. Until the non-Chalcedonians realize they were wrong and accept Chalcedon in its entirety, along with the other ecumenical councils, they will not be Orthodox.

[minasoliman]

From what I hear they will gladly accept all the ones after the 4th. But its still the 4th that is the area where there is still disagreement

Correction: We will accept their faith (we have always accepted their faith anyway) after you lift the anathemas against those we feel were misjudged, and we do the same likewise on our side as well. Such a move requires, what many are growing to believe, a modern-day Ecumenical council for this to happen.

God bless.

Mina

[Xpycoctomos]

I must say that the format of having a real First among Equals (like Rome was, not like the EP tries to be) is very appealing. Having a central spokesperson and leader (much like a CEO who doesn't have the last word in a business, but presides over meetings and calls meetings to resolve problems) is greatly needed int he OC. Unfortunaltely that won't happen for a long time. I really don't care who it is. The Patriarch of moscow, Constantinople, Jerusalem... any Patriarch. But a position to which true honor and respect is given. A patriarch that others think twice about before questioning. We dn't have that. I don;t see how we could call and Ecumenical Council in our state right now.

Don't get me wrong, I am not doubting the trueness of the Orthodox Chruch. Although it would be seemingly impossible for us to work out dogmatic or moral issues (the latter of which is surely more pressing nowdays) as a unified Church (mostly out of pride than discord), the Holy Spirit will do His thing when push comes to shove.

We need a new Rome that we actually treat like Rome was treated. This, I believe, is our greatest weakness.

I will say, though, that I was impressed when we were able to get together most of the important bishops and patriarchs in Constantinople to decide what should be done with the Patriarch of Jerusalem.. and that we came out with a unified decision. That helped dissipate some of doubt I have in our Patriarchs' ability to truly work together in love and respect.

[HandmaidenOfGod]

A patriarch that others think twice about before questioning.

All of our Patriarchs fall under this category. We don't need a new Rome. Our autocephaly is our greatest strength.

Orthodoxy has always been ruled the way it is now, and they were able to hold EC's just fine.

If an EC was needed now, the Church could pull one together, no problem.

[Xpycoctomos]

I hope you are right.

Fact is, however, when you look at how the early Church looked to Rome, it is nothing like what we have now with Constantinople (nor is it anything like how the RCC treats Rome... but that's not our issue to deal with).

John

[Matrona]

I don;t see how we could call and Ecumenical Council in our state right now.

That's because ONE DOES NOT "CALL AN ECUMENICAL COUNCIL".

Don't get me wrong, I am not doubting the trueness of the Orthodox Chruch.

Don't take this the wrong way, but you could have fooled me.

I will say, though, that I was impressed when we were able to get together most of the important bishops and patriarchs in Constantinople to decide what should be done with the Patriarch of Jerusalem.. and that we came out with a unified decision. That helped dissipate some of doubt I have in our Patriarchs' ability to truly work together in love and respect.

Why are you talking about that pan-Orthodox council as if it were out of the ordinary?

I think you need to sit down and really study the history of the Church in the past thousand years. I think you'll find that you are very much mistaken on every point you attempted to outline in this post.

[Rilian]

I hope you are right.

Fact is, however, when you look at how the early Church looked to Rome

How early do you want to look? I'll quote this article that appeared in the Catholic Journal the Tablet, that is written by Eamon Duffy (a Catholic)

At least since the high Middle Ages the papacy has been understood as an institution directly created by Jesus Christ in his own lifetime: he willed that his Church should be ruled by the Apostles and their successors, and he gave to Peter, as leader of the apostles, the fullness of spiritual power, the keys of the kingdom of heaven. Peter came to Rome, and there appointed his own successors, whose names are recited to this day in the canon of the Mass – Linus, Cletus, Clement, and so on down to John Paul II. All that the modern Church claims for the pope, his authority in doctrine and his power over institutions, is on this account a simple unfolding of the dominical bestowal of the keys, and the post-resurrection command to Peter to feed Christ’s sheep.

We have known for more than a century that the historical underpinning of this account is unfortunately not quite so simple. The Church of Rome during its first two centuries based its claims to precedence not on the Lord’s words to Peter, but on the preaching and death in Rome of two apostles, Peter and Paul. The commission in Matthew 16:18, "Thou art Peter, and upon this Rock I will build my Church, and I will give to thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven", is quoted in no Roman source before the time of the Decian persecution, in the middle of the third century, and even then the claims which the Pope of the time tried to base on that quotation were indignantly rejected by the Churches of Africa to whom he was addressing himself.

And indeed, the very roots of what may be called the foundation myth of the papacy are themselves uncomfortably complicated. The Church established itself in Rome some time in the AD 40s: we now know that for the best part of the century that followed, there was nothing and nobody in Rome who could recognisably be called a pope. Christianity in Rome evolved out of the Roman synagogues, and to begin with it was not so much a single Church as a constellation of independent churches, meeting in the houses of wealthy converts or in hired halls and public baths, without any central ruler or bishop. The Roman synagogues – there were 14 of them in the first century – unlike the synagogues in other great Mediterranean cities like Antioch . . . were all independent, with no central organisation or single president, and to begin with at least, the churches of Rome also functioned independently. Many of them were in any case ethnic or regional churches, groups of Syrian, Greek, Asian residents in Rome, using their own languages, following the customs of the Christian communities back in their home regions.

Elsewhere in the first century, episcopacy emerged as the dominant form of church order – the rule of each church by a single senior presbyter who took the lead in ordinations and the celebration of the Eucharist, and who was the focus of unity for all the Christians of a city or region. But Rome, probably because of the complexity and ethnic and cultural diversity of the Christian communities of the capital of the world, was very slow to adopt this system.

In the conventional accounts of the history of the papacy, the letter of Clement, written from Rome to the Church at Corinth around the year AD 95, is often thought of as the first papal encyclical, attributed to Pope Clement, Peter’s third successor and the last pope personally known to the Prince of the Apostles. In fact, the letter is written on behalf of the whole Roman Church, it is unsigned, and the author speaks unequivocally of "the elders who rule the Church", in the plural.

EVERYTHING we know about the Church at Rome in its first century or so points in the same direction, to a community which certainly thought of itself as one Church, but which was in practice a loose and often divided federation of widely different communities, each with its own pastors and its own distinctive and often conflicting liturgies, calendars and customs. It was in fact the threat of heresy within this seething diversity, and the Roman need to impose some sort of unity and coherence on the Church in the city, that led to the emergence of the Roman episcopate, and the firming up of the Roman community’s pride in the life and death among them of the two greatest apostles, into a succession narrative. By the 160s the graves of Peter and Paul had shrines built over them and were being shown to Christian visitors to Rome: by the early third century the bishops of Rome were being buried in a single crypt in what is now the catacomb of San Callisto, as a sort of visible family tree stretching back, it was believed, to the apostolic age. But all this was a construct, tidying the mess and confusion of real history into a neat and orderly relay race, with the baton of apostolic authority being handed from one bishop to another.

The article is here (http://www.thetablet.co.uk/cgi-bin/register.cgi/tablet-00195).

What we don't have now that existed at the time of the councils is the Emporer, but I would say we are better off for it. What the Roman Church did was make the Pope both Bishop and Emperor, and I would say they are worse off for it.

[xristos.anesti]

To re-iterate:

We do not call Ecumenical councils!

We call general councils, which after the test of time, under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit and by the acceptance of the Catholic Church became Ecumenical.

We can not call an ecumenical council now, as we could not call one ever before.

You do not create a masterpiece - you create work of art - that becomes a masterpiece.


Many years.

[Xpycoctomos]

To re-iterate:

We do not call Ecumenical councils!

We call general councils, which after the test of time, under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit and by the acceptance of the Catholic Church became Ecumenical.

We can not call an ecumenical council now, as we could not call one ever before.

You do not create a masterpiece - you create work of art - that becomes a masterpiece.


Many years.

Very Excellent point. Thank you.

[Xpycoctomos]

Don't take this the wrong way, but you could have fooled me.

sooo.. how am I supposed to take that exactly?

It's seems you are implying that you believe that I DO question the trueness of the Church. I love that just because I am not scared to suggest that maybe our heirarchy does not work together too smoothly nowdays and because I hold the personal belief that we could use a more central spokesperson that my Orthodoxy is brought into doubt by other people.

I guess some things never change.

Except in the Church. Ecumenical Patriarch used to mean something. Now, it means almost nothing. It's empty title we attrivut to Constantinople and that is scoffed at by Moscow. That's not what happened with Rome on the whole until later when Rome began to drift and isolate Herself.

Geez... with such a crazy liberal view, I should probably just be episcopalian! Or I should talk to my bishop... but he would just get hung up on the fact that I referred to the Patriarch of Constantinople as the Ecumenical Patriarch.

John

[Xpycoctomos]

Rilian:

I have definitely read articles and books purporting what you've said (one of which is from a Catholic). That is definitely important to take into account. However, that are very very strong quotes about the pope in Rome and an honor that he held from various saints (East and West) that can't be simply explained away. (Just go into OBOB and they'll have them for you in a few minutes. But I'm sure you've seen the myriad of quotes -in their context- some better than others) Certainly there was not complete agreement in the Church. But in general, through my reading, it does seem apparent that people looked toward Rome for leadership (no... not a boss... leadership.. that doesnt mea they make the decisions). I think it offered something that we don't have now. We are not less of a Church for it... but we are somewhat stunted in how efficiently we can react to issues.

Personally, I feel we could use a General Council to be accpeted by the CHurch as a whole regarding certain modern issues. But I'm not going to get into that here since that would be another long thread and... I don't feel up to it. lol

Anyhow, I am not telling anyone that they are wrong fro believing that we are better off now than we were 1000 years ago when Ecumenical Patriarch meant something very specific. There are definitely very valid points that even I (the house heretic here lol) can see in that. Defintiely. But I don't feel that I am some renigade Orthodox for suggesting that something is wrong with how things work right now.

I know that to the sensative here I come across as someone looking for a modern day Pope but I am very staunchly against any kind of imagined Papal Infallibility and Universal Jurisdiction (at least the way this latter one is interpreted by the West). It's anyone's choice here to choose to believe me or doubt my Orthodoxy (and I dn't think you were doubting me Rilian).

Just some thoughts.

[EricTheRed]

I have to agree with Xpycoctomos on this one.