Ecumenical Councils

[_Shannon_]

Could you all tell me a little more about how this works. The book I am reading talks about the Ecumenical Council as the authority of the Church--and that ALL people make up the Church. It says that there have been times when the decisions of bishops have been rejected by the church as a whole-- does anyone know where I can read more about that??

I was talking to my husband about it and this is what I said , "It seems like my head could think, 'It is a great idea to run a marathon'- but the rest of my body could actually be unable to accomplish that goal." Does that adequately express the idea? Or is it different?

[zhilan]

Orthodoxy is different form Catholicism because Catholicism is defined as unity under the Pope whereas Orthodoxy is definite as unity to the truth. You won't find any infallible people in the Orthodox church. It's a church full of sinners. There have been times when huge numbers, even bishops and patriarchs have fallen into serious error and even heresy. But it doesn't matter (well it does to their soul, but not to Orthodoxy as a whole) because Orthodoxy - the Orthodox Church and the Orthodox faith - is preserved by the Holy Spirit. What this means is that the Orthodox, every Orthodox, has a job. They must test everything to see if it is in accordance with the truth that has been passed down through the Church since the time of Jesus. So to give a historical example, there was a time when the iconoclast got power and tried to purge the Church of icons. Hundreds upon hundreds were martryed becuase they would not give up the icons and let them be destroyed. Some high members of the church gave into heresy, but the faithful knew this was not the true Church, and they did not accept iconoclasm. It is often the monastics and faithful that prove true guardians of Orthodoxy. But this should not be confused as being some sort of a democracy. It's not a democracy but more like....i don't know an example, but like everyone is guards.

The problem that the Catholic church has is that they too have had sinners and heretics in their leadership at times. However because of their instance of infallibility under a -man- when something changes they have to go back and rewrite history to keep it in line or they have to come up with complicated theological dogmas to explain away the teachings (that's how we get things like limbo). Men are sinners, men make mistakes. But God doesn't.

[Benedicta00]

zhilan

can't say much to you here, but I disagree with you assessment of the Catholic side of things.

[Veritas_et_Puritas]

zhilan

can't say much to you here, but I disagree with you assessment of the Catholic side of things.

She's giving you the Orthodox perspective. Being a Catholic, if course you will see things differently and disagree. But this is an Orthodox forum, and we ought to respect that.

I have been interested in this issue lately too, Shannon. Thanks for starting this thread, because I will likely be tossing some questions out, too.

I've been reading and learning about Orthodoxy over the last couple of years and I am always struck by the Orthodox perspective of what it means to be "church". I've taken courses on Catholic church history, and I've always been struck by the fact that papal infallibility is indeed a development. An organic development, based on the historical trends in the west, but a development nonetheless.

But it's still difficult for me to understand concepts like... in the Romanian church, it's widely practiced that adults and even teens receive communion infrequently because of a belief concerning the proper disposition in which one may approach the Eucharist. (I've read this and been told this by Orthodox, but forgive me if I am incorrect.) But other churches - Antiochian, Greek, Russian, etc. - can't weigh in on the matter, really, because the Romanian church is not under anyone's jurisdiction besides its own.

Maybe I'm still not understanding how things work, but it's tough to see things from the Orthodox perspective when I have grown up with a very different one... but I am sure the converts here know how that feels, too.

[icxn]

...But it's still difficult for me to understand concepts like... in the Romanian church, it's widely practiced that adults and even teens receive communion infrequently because of a belief concerning the proper disposition in which one may approach the Eucharist. (I've read this and been told this by Orthodox, but forgive me if I am incorrect.) But other churches - Antiochian, Greek, Russian, etc. - can't weigh in on the matter, really, because the Romanian church is not under anyone's jurisdiction besides its own.

Maybe I'm still not understanding how things work, but it's tough to see things from the Orthodox perspective when I have grown up with a very different one... but I am sure the converts here know how that feels, too.

If I remember correctly from Elder Cleopa, the strictness concerning the partaking of the Eucharist in Romania, was imposed at a time when the Church was under persecution and the people, not having the proper guidance, fell in grave sins (consulting mediums comes to mind, also fornication) and so to avoid approaching the mysteries unworthily they were forced to abstain.

Generally things in Orthodoxy work on an individual basis. Of course there are rules, but these are used more or less as guidelines, with discernment having the final word on how to deal with specific problems. It is not different than medicine. Two people may have the same symptoms but different causes of their illness. Some may even have allergies to specific medicine. It would be a grave error on behalf of the doctor to prescribe the same medicine to all without regarding the circumstances of each case.

[Veritas_et_Puritas]

Generally things in Orthodoxy work on an individual basis. Of course there are rules, but these are used more or less as guidelines, with discernment having the final word on how to deal with specific problems. It is not different than medicine. Two people may have the same symptoms but different causes of their illness. Some may even have allergies to specific medicine. It would be a grave error on behalf of the doctor to prescribe the same medicine to all without regarding the circumstances of each case.

And that is what makes me feel "at home" with much of the Orthodox approach. :) I think in general many (if not most) western Christians respond to the "what" rather than the "why" of things, which is the most important thing when looking at how one is to live one's life as a devout Christian. Too eager to throw up the "SIN!" flag and trying to stomp it out and nip it in the bud rather than going to the root of the problem.

I think it was one of the TAW posters here who upon conversion spoke of how the faith expresses more "mercy" toward the sinner rather than dropping the guillotine. But this merciful approach does not permit laziness and sinfulness... it has as its root the goal of charity and love, which has struck me very profoundly.

[Xpycoctomos]

In one way, you could say that our Ecumenical Councils are equivalent to the RC Pope in terms of infallibility. But even there the two really don't match up.

The Pope is infallible when he speaks ex-cathedra (what that is EXACTLY I am not sure, because I can't yet find any official list of what the Pope has pronounced ex-cathedra, but that very well could be due to my inadequate knowledge and proximity to the RCC) so, theoretically, everyone knows when something is an unquestionable teaching at the time it is pronounced to the world by the Pope of Rome.

On the other hand, an Ecumencial Council is not so straight-forward. What makes it "ecumencial"? Well, others can answer that in better detail, but the basic and overall idea is that the Church as a whole has accepted the Council as expressing only truth in terms of belief AND this has happened because the Spirit has tested these doctrines and the ideas pronounced in the Council have passed the test and given good fruit that has nourished the Church in a godly way (usually over generations). But, the catch is that this takes time. A council is only binding once this has happened (although, remember, as the Catholic Church says, we also believe that these Truths always existed. A council doesn't create a new Truth, it only recognizes it and tried to make it somewhat understandable so the Church may hold on to it and believe it).

If we had a reason (or reasons) to have another major council (perhaps ecumenism would be tackled here) and we could get our act together to hold one as a family and not bicker about it, this would be an important step. However, I highly doubt you would see us calling ourselves the Church of the 8 Councils the next day and not only because we are so used to hearing and saying "7" instead (although this could possibly be a reason, unfortunately). Even ideally this wouldn't happen right away. It would need time, probably generations for the decisions to enter the psyche and heart of the Church, if this were to happen at all. And perhaps over time the Church as a whole would deem the decisions of this so-called 8th Ecumenical Council as not wise and not bearing healthy fruit and so would just fall into oblivion.

Here's the issue as I see it. In the West, we like things to be nice an neat on paper. I say "we" becuase you and I are western. We are taught to think linearly and much of the philosophy that feeds our way of thinking and seeing the world (scholastic, etc) reflects this. You look at Eastern Europe (even Greece) and compare how their society operates compared to Western Europe (and even the States) and the East seems so chaotic. This goes for government, social interaction, commerce and, yes, relgion. Now, this is not a criticism of either way: they both have their strengths and their weaknesses. I think the western weaknesses are all the more apparent when it comes to religion. It is my personal belief that the western mindset craves the idea of a Pope... one central and earthly Figure Head; a decisive way to tell if something is Truth or not. I mean, on paper it is fantastic. You have this nice, neat pyramid shape and it all leads up to one guy who, when the Holy Spirit sees the need, can definitively lead the Church to the right decision. It's very black and white and very appealing to our simple (not stupid, but simple) way of thinking.

In the East, as with most anything else, it's not so nice and clean. There's really just a bunch of pyramids (some larger than others and some more nicely oraganized than others) and the tops of these pyramids can only make decisions about administrative things and on how to instruct her people on disciplines (fasting and such) but they may not form new doctrines or at lest not with any kind of real or lasting authority. If this needed to happen, an Ecumenical Council would need to be called and then we would just have to wait and see what happened from there. Or the Holy Spirit may choose another way to gently lead His people to a deeper understanding of the Truth over time. Who knows? Yeah, not a nice clean answer. And, you know, although others here will be able to add more concise and useful details that will help you, I don't think you will come out being able to neatly explain how things work in the Orthodox Church as you can in the RC. It's just not nice and neat. In the short run I think this causes small problems (although percieved as large problems due to our impatience and short-sightedness), but in the long run, I think it works out quite nicely.

What I am goign to say next isn't proof of anything. If anything, it is proof only to someone who has already accepted the Orthodox Way hook, line and sinker. For me, the very fact that the Orthodox Church has stayed so faithful to the Truth as expressed in the Early Church and by the Fathers, despite (or becuase of) our chaotic/mysterious way of letting Truth discern itself in the CHurch over time, is proof that the Holy Spirit is alive and well int he Orthodox Church. For an outsider who is becoming increasingly conviced by the Orthodox Church, while this may be a source of doubt or suspicion that something's wrong in the kitchen, the fact that the main course is prepared so well in the end should offer reason to wonder if a miracle (almost intrinsic by nature) is taking place on a daily basis in the Orthodox Church. Were we a business, it would make absolutely no sense that our maeal would be so excellent. It should taste like dung... or worse yet, taste wonderfully but be poisonous in reality. [end/ analogy :)]

I have never read a thread or book that has lead me to feel completely satisfied about how things work and are decided in the Orthodox Church becuase it is so "well... in the end... it just works". Despite this fact, I AM indeed left satisfied with how things work (in the long run, surely there is always some tidying up that can be done); not because of anything I have read as much as becuase of what I experience... I am then left convinced and at ease with the fact that... "well... in the end... it just works." :)

I don't think that my answer will leave you satisfied and I am not sure that any of this thread will leave you satisfied, although I do think that others will come and offer further insights that will help. Hopefully, though, I've been able to offer you a different way of looking at it and perhaps a context in which to accept that you aren't going to find a nice neat comparison to the Western Model.

John

[MariaRegina]

Great post, John.

[EmperorConstantine]

Councils are called when needed. Nicaea was called to deal with Arianism. Ephesus called to deal with Nestorianism, etc etc.

The Roman Catholic Church defines a council as ecumenical if the bishop of Rome was there. That's why there are twenty-something councils in the RC Church.

The Orthodox defines a council if the five patriarchs (Rome, Constantinople, Alexandria, Antioch and Jerusalem) were there. Rome has not been around since 1054ish, therefore no ecumenical councils since 787.

[Xpycoctomos]

For whatever it's worth, I reworded and fixed some typos in my above post and added a short paragraph. It doesn't really change the meaning. I HOPE it only clarifies some awkwardly worded statements (and my paragraph was just to add a thought I... thought of lol). It's not important enough to read again if you've already read it.. but I thought I would mention it since I changed AFTER it was commented on.

John

[MariaRegina]

Well, John, I read the essays of ESL students and I tell them to write down their thoughts without any concern for grammatical and spellings errors which can be fixed later. (And by the way, because is spelled because. LOL) Yes, I tend to reverse some letters too when my thumbs get in the way.

So, I thought your words flowed quite naturally.

[xristos.anesti]

It dose not mattre if we write the wrods in a certani way or the orthe, for brani dose not read the wrods lettre by lettre but by whelo wrod and in conxtet.;)

[MariaRegina]

Exactly.

In fact, it is very easy to read becuase as because.

[Xpycoctomos]

It dose not mattre if we write the wrods in a certani way or the orthe, for brani dose not read the wrods lettre by lettre but by whelo wrod and in conxtet.;)
but it mkaes mi look iliterate adn undecutated.

[_Shannon_]

WEll- then John-- let it be an act of humility- aimed at making me not feel so intimidated asking about all of this :)

I don't have much time to write right now-- but I wil post more later or tomorrow.

[zhilan]

zhilan

can't say much to you here, but I disagree with you assessment of the Catholic side of things.

Oh, I see, this is what you were referring to in the OBOB thread. Sorry, hadn't seen this when I posted. How have I misrepresented the Catholic view? Does the Catholic church not unite itself under the Pope?

[JM]

Hey folks,

Where can I find the ecumenical councils? Are they in print, or perhaps online?

Thanks.

[Xpycoctomos]

Oh, I see, this is what you were referring to in the OBOB thread. Sorry, hadn't seen this when I posted. How have I misrepresented the Catholic view? Does the Catholic church not unite itself under the Pope?
Lets try to keep this in OBOB or at least a new thread (And we can link it here) just to keep the thread OT.

[Ioan cel Nou]

in the Romanian church, it's widely practiced that adults and even teens receive communion infrequently because of a belief concerning the proper disposition in which one may approach the Eucharist. (I've read this and been told this by Orthodox, but forgive me if I am incorrect.)

You are correct but it is by no means confined to the Romanians. I've seen the same phenomenon amongst Russians, Ukrainians and Serbians, and I wouldn't be at all surprised to see it elsewhere also. I would point out, though, that infrequent communion is not taught by our church as good but, rather, is a popular practice that occurred over time. The situation is changing, though, and the laiety being encouraged to commune more often. My priest is very strong on trying to get people to commune frequently. He says that there's nothing sadder than seeing only the chldren partaking. I doubt he'll convince the old people any time soon, though.
But other churches - Antiochian, Greek, Russian, etc. - can't weigh in on the matter, really, because the Romanian church is not under anyone's jurisdiction besides its own.
Which is right. It's not just across local church boundaries either. One bishop cannot interfere with another, though his synod can tell him what to do. In other words, Metropolitan Daniil of Moldova cannot interfere with Metropolitan Iosif of Western and Southern Europe, just as Patriarch Alexy of Russia can't interfere with Patriarch Teoctist of my church. To me, this is one of the major things that convinces me that we really are guided by the Holy Spirit, because we all really do profess the same faith with no central authority to impose it. I see more unity of faith amongst us than amongst those under the Pope of Rome.

Having said that, though, there's really nothing to weigh in on (our church already is addressing the problem but it takes time) and many of the other churches suffer from the self same problem as we do. It will all sort itself out, but it most likely will do so in 'Orthodox time'. If I were a gambling man I'd put money on my children receiving frequently and their children never realising that there was a time when people did not. It will never be as frequent as in the west, however, or not for most people, because we, like the Russians, do insist on fasting and confession as preparation (at minimum keeping the normal fasts for the preceding week) and that is something that I cannot see changing, though the requirements for confession may loosen a little - I have been told that I could confess every 3 or 4 weeks plus extras whenever I feel I have done something that makes me unfit to receive and that I would then be allowed to partake every week. For practical purposes, though, this means that I am uncomfortable unless I confess every time.

James

[buzuxi02]

Ecumenical councils are called upon to pronouce on a particular teaching which is causing major conflict within the Church.

The Ecumenical Councuil calls upon the bishops of the churches to present the apostolic tradition of their church, so the truth can be established.
In Orthodoxy an ecumenical council is only called to condemn false belief ravaging the Church and establish right belief, another words; To uphold that belief which was held in all places and at all times since the begining, and holds its origins with the apostles.

Thats why there has never been an ecumenical council held to declare the Real Presence of the Eucharist. Because no one has ever disputed it. The Real Presence does not need to be dogmatized since its already firmly ingrained into the "conscience of the Church"

The "Conscience of the Church" is also what makes a council "ecumenical". Some councils took decades to be declared ecumenical and other councils that were meant to be ecumenical , became "robber synods" and forgotten into the relics of obscure church history.
A council's descision must always be the consensus of the church (that which is held in all places at all times since the beginning) or it will be rejected and forgotten.

The council may clarify or use more precise terminology in defining right belief from false, This new way of presenting the same never-changing Tradition will; eventually (perhaps after a long time) be accepted into the conscience of the church. In hindsight future Saints, bishops, teachers, pious laity, will see how the Holy Spirit preserved the church from error at the council and Brought to mind the truth (Jn 16.12, 14.25) by making the dogma of the council an integral part of her belief and worship (as the scripture promises Jn 14.15-17), and this would naturally be recognized as an ecumenical council.

[Xpycoctomos]

It might also be, at the very least, interesting to know that some (many? all?) patriarchs do not (cannot) make descisions on their own. They belong to synods of which they preside over. Patrairch Alexy, from what i have been told, cannot make decisions without the approval of his synod (although perhaps he has special powers like "vetos" or something?). He's moreso just a spokes person (who, in all reality, probalby has a lot of political clout both officially and unofficially).

Ioan kind of touched on this point, but can anyone give more information or good sites on this?

Thanks.

John

[Veritas_et_Puritas]

Again, a very collegial approach. :) Interesting.

[Xpycoctomos]

Again, a very collegial approach. :) Interesting.
Yeah, I thought that was interesting too. However, I don't know that it is this way for all partrarchs (ie that they must act in accordance with a synod). It could be that for some areas it truly is a pyramid (with no synod at the top, just one man) or in others even where there is a Synod, the synod is just there to offer guidance and suggestions to the Patriarch but in the end he is still "the man".. the "big cheese"... the "head honcho" lol. This latter would be much like the Pope as I understand it becuase although he can theoretically make petrine statements on his own without help, practically speaking (IIRC) theyhave always met with cardinals and have seeked the wisdom and discernment of them, theologians and various trusted clergy. The only really important distinction (that leads all of this back to the topic at hand) is that none of our patriarchs can make official unilateral decisions on matters of dogma and doctrine. I mean, one COULD do this, but it would have no standing and i don't think the rest of the Church would sit by quietly and allow him to believe he somehow has powers similar to that of the Pope of Rome. This is done collegially and must be done colegially.

John

[Matrona]

The Orthodox defines a council if the five patriarchs (Rome, Constantinople, Alexandria, Antioch and Jerusalem) were there. Rome has not been around since 1054ish, therefore no ecumenical councils since 787.

Sorry, but this is completely untrue. There was at least one (well pre-schism) ecumenical council that the bishop of Rome had nothing to do with. Also, since there is no longer a see of Rome, it is certainly not needed for another Ecumenical Council. The idea that it would be contravenes the very nature of an ecumenical council.

[EmperorConstantine]

Sorry, but this is completely untrue. There was at least one (well pre-schism) ecumenical council that the bishop of Rome had nothing to do with. Also, since there is no longer a see of Rome, it is certainly not needed for another Ecumenical Council. The idea that it would be contravenes the very nature of an ecumenical council.
Really? :scratch:

Hm... I must have heard wrong that day.

I was thinking the Seven Ecumenical Councils in my other post. Maybe that had something to do with it?

[Ioan cel Nou]

Sorry, but this is completely untrue. There was at least one (well pre-schism) ecumenical council that the bishop of Rome had nothing to do with. Also, since there is no longer a see of Rome, it is certainly not needed for another Ecumenical Council. The idea that it would be contravenes the very nature of an ecumenical council.
I think you'll find that the Pope of Rome was present at the grand total of 0 Ecumenical Councils. He sent legates to some and at at least one was represented by another Patriarch (in effect he handed his precedence on to another because the Patriarch of Constantinople at the time was a proponent of the heresy under consideration), but I don't know of a single one that he personally attended.

James

[Ioan cel Nou]

Yeah, I thought that was interesting too. However, I don't know that it is this way for all partrarchs (ie that they must act in accordance with a synod). It could be that for some areas it truly is a pyramid (with no synod at the top, just one man) or in others even where there is a Synod, the synod is just there to offer guidance and suggestions to the Patriarch but in the end he is still "the man".. the "big cheese"... the "head honcho" lol. This latter would be much like the Pope as I understand it becuase although he can theoretically make petrine statements on his own without help, practically speaking (IIRC) theyhave always met with cardinals and have seeked the wisdom and discernment of them, theologians and various trusted clergy. The only really important distinction (that leads all of this back to the topic at hand) is that none of our patriarchs can make official unilateral decisions on matters of dogma and doctrine. I mean, one COULD do this, but it would have no standing and i don't think the rest of the Church would sit by quietly and allow him to believe he somehow has powers similar to that of the Pope of Rome. This is done collegially and must be done colegially.

John
I don't know about others, but I remember reading that in effect our Patriarch governs the Church for the Holy Synod between meetings. In other words, whilst Patriarch Teoctist does have the power to respond to an urgent crisis unilaterally without having to call a meeting of the entire Synod and does conduct the day to day and more pedestrian administration of the Church, he could be called to account at the next meeting of the Synod if he did something wrong. This sounds rather like what you were describing for Russia.

Certainly he is not above the Holy Synod but rather their figurehead as first among equals, as was demonstrated by his actions at the fall of communism when, fearing that he might be viewed as tainted he offered his resignation fotr the good of the church. Our Holy Synod (with overwhelming support in the church)refused to accept it and he abided by their refusal, hence the fact that he is still our Patriarch today.

James

[buzuxi02]

The concept of the "Pentarchy" is a later development.

At the same time Rome was countering this by developing a primitive form of papal supremacy.

Ecumenical councils are not ecumenical because a patriarch accepts it, but because the council upholds right belief and becomes part of the conscience of the church.

A patriarch may reject a council but his successor accept it, sometimes it doesnt matter. When the east was overrun by Arians bishops the laity and faithful bishops still refered to the Virgin Mary as "Theotokos" (God-bearer), thus the faith of Nicea (which was considered a robber synod during this time) in the east, prevailed.

Remember before Nicea there were no Patriarchates. Nicea established the patriarchates. And before the council of Constantinople in 381 a.d.there were only 3 patriarchates: Rome ,Alexandria, Antioch.

And by Ephesus 431 a.d. Jerusalem was added to the fifth place.

[xristos.anesti]

What are the common principles of the first Seven Ecumenical Councils that are present so that they were deemed Ecumenical? That is, what is common to all of them?

Orthodox Episcopes present,
Emperor present,
Pope of Rome not present,
People of the Church moved by the Holy Spirit deemed it to be Ecumenical - in time,
a controversial issue present in the Church...

Keep going... I can't think of any others, for now -

[Matrona]

I think you'll find that the Pope of Rome was present at the grand total of 0 Ecumenical Councils.

I know that. I was thinking of one that he didn't even know about until after the fact.