CaliforniaJosiah
19th October 2006, 05:53 PM
I read the following from Fr. Anthony M. Coniaris (The Eastern Orthodox Church - Who Are We?" c. 1977 Light and Life Publishing, Minneapolis, MN)
"The highest authority of the Eastern Church is the Ecumenical Council, involving the whole church. When the bishops of the church define a matter of faith in an Ecumenical Council, their decision must be accepted by the lay people of the church as a whole. Only then is it considered inspired by the Holy Spirit, who resides in the whole church, consisting of clergy and laity. This makes not one person - be he bishop, pope or patriarch, but every person together within the church responsble for Christian truth. There have been instances where decisions of the bishops in Council have not been accepted because they were rejected by the church as a whole."
1. I'd deeply appreciate some general comments. I'm "reading this" largely through Catholic "eyes" and know I must not do that. So I'd appreciate any comments that might help me understand exactly what is being said there.
2. What, exactly, is meant by "Ecumenical Council." Are we speaking of the first 7 that the RCC also embrace? What the the last such Council the EO recognizes? Why? Would the EO be open to one today? Would that be possible? Who would be included (if I'm not being too theoretical here)?
3. "Their decision must be accepted by the lay people of the church as a whole, only then can it be consider inspired..." Does this mean there is a broad, ecumenical consensus and affirmation by the entire laity before something would be considered embraced? (IF so, this is clearly the exact opposite of how Authority works in the RCC).
4. "There have been instances where decisions of the bishops in Council have not been accepted as binding because they were rejected by the church as a whole." Can you give me some examples? I sincerely doubt this would happen in the EO, but THEORETICALLY (as I apply this epistemology to other faith communities), could something once accepted now be rejected because that affirmation has vanished?
Thank you!!
Blessings!
- Josiah
"The highest authority of the Eastern Church is the Ecumenical Council, involving the whole church. When the bishops of the church define a matter of faith in an Ecumenical Council, their decision must be accepted by the lay people of the church as a whole. Only then is it considered inspired by the Holy Spirit, who resides in the whole church, consisting of clergy and laity. This makes not one person - be he bishop, pope or patriarch, but every person together within the church responsble for Christian truth. There have been instances where decisions of the bishops in Council have not been accepted because they were rejected by the church as a whole."
1. I'd deeply appreciate some general comments. I'm "reading this" largely through Catholic "eyes" and know I must not do that. So I'd appreciate any comments that might help me understand exactly what is being said there.
2. What, exactly, is meant by "Ecumenical Council." Are we speaking of the first 7 that the RCC also embrace? What the the last such Council the EO recognizes? Why? Would the EO be open to one today? Would that be possible? Who would be included (if I'm not being too theoretical here)?
3. "Their decision must be accepted by the lay people of the church as a whole, only then can it be consider inspired..." Does this mean there is a broad, ecumenical consensus and affirmation by the entire laity before something would be considered embraced? (IF so, this is clearly the exact opposite of how Authority works in the RCC).
4. "There have been instances where decisions of the bishops in Council have not been accepted as binding because they were rejected by the church as a whole." Can you give me some examples? I sincerely doubt this would happen in the EO, but THEORETICALLY (as I apply this epistemology to other faith communities), could something once accepted now be rejected because that affirmation has vanished?
Thank you!!
Blessings!
- Josiah