[quote:26fvf1se][quote:26fvf1se]It’s probably worth checking back every now and again – the article isn’t terribly long but it does give an overview of the other two councils.
Got it to work…. thanks.
[quote:26fvf1se]but I have to warn you that if you’re looking for what we ‘added’ to the faith, meaning what it sounds like you mean, then you won’t find anything at all. [/quote:26fvf1se]
I’ve warned you in the past not to assign motives to my questions….
I’m trying to educate myself about the differences…. SOME of us are open to learning BOTH sides of an argument.
Back to my questions…. there has been no Orthodox Ecumenical Council since (at the very latest according to the article) 1351. Is this correct?
What, in your opinion, is the function/purpose of an Orthodox Ecumenical Council?
Note the word [u:26fvf1se][b:26fvf1se][i:26fvf1se]if[/i:26fvf1se][/b:26fvf1se][/u:26fvf1se] in my warning. I wasn’t assigning motives, just pre-emptively answering one possible intrepretation of a phrase in your post I found ambiguous. I [i:26fvf1se]am[/i:26fvf1se] open to understanding your side of the argument better and you likewise should not be reading dubious motives into my posts. I thought I couched my language quite neutrally in that last reply. I don’t actually know what exactly you mean by doctrinal development (and you haven’t tried to explain) but I have explained what kind of development it is that we find illegitimate and which, to us, appears to be acceptable in the eyes of the RCC. I’d be happy to find out that our perception is wrong but I’ve yet to come across an RC who would say this.
What’s the purpose of an Ecumenical Council, you ask? To defend the faith handed down from the Apostles from heresy. Hence the last one (you’re right on the date) was defending the faith from the nominalist humanism of Barlaam and his supporters, Chalcedon was defending the faith from Nestorius and Eutyches, Nicea was defending the faith from Arius etc. [i:26fvf1se]All[/i:26fvf1se] of our commonly held ECs had that as their primary purpose and so do our additional two (the eighth condemned filioquism). Are your additional councils different in the main? I know Vatican I and II were, but I know very little about previous ones.
We have also had several Pan-Orthodox Councils since the last Ecumenical that have had the same purpose, defending the faith from, for instance, Protestant errors that were creeping into the Church. These, to me, seem only to differ from Ecumenical Councils by virtue of their name. Likewise we have local Synods like Iasi, whose decisions were accepted by the whole Church which met for the same purpose (Iasi, for instance, defended the entire Septuagint including deuterocannonicals against Protestant accusations that they weren’t Scripture – you had a council for a similar purpose, I believe). I know, however, of no council, Ecumenical, Pan-Orthodox, or Local which has sat for the purpose of defining new doctrine.