[quote:1jca46k4]I was hoping one of our Orthodox brothers/sisters can tell me when the most recent Orthodox Ecumenical Council was held….. a “real” Council, with all of the Patriarchs of the East in attendance…. and the substance of that Councils teachings.

Thanks in advance,
Scott[/quote:1jca46k4]

Surely you mean with all the Patriarchs represented, not in attendance. I can’t think of one Ecumenical Council where every Patriarch was present in person off the top of my head. Often the missing Patriarch was the Pope, of course, who sent legates.

Now, are you sure you want an Ecumenical Council or will a Pan-Orthodox Synod do? The last council that [i:1jca46k4]all[/i:1jca46k4] Orthodox recognise as Ecumenical is the 7th, which as I’m sure you’re aware was called to combat Iconoclasm. Some Orthodox also accept two more as Ecumenical whilst some seem unwilling to call them Ecumenical for some reason. I think that the eighth and ninth councils are Ecumenical, though I wouldn’t insist on the point, because their teachings are of a nature as to be binding on the whole Church. For a brief rundown on when and where these councils were held and what they taught, see:

[url:1jca46k4]http://www.geocities.com/trvalentine/orthodox/8-9synods.html[/url:1jca46k4]

Of course, there have been a lot of Pan-Orthodox Synods which, to be honest, only seem to differ from an Ecumenical Council by reason of the fact that they were called by no Emperor. The whole Church accepts their teachings and so on. There are also a number of local councils that have been accepted as being binding on the whole Church, such as the Council of Iasi (for some reason usually rendered Jassy in English), but I’d guess you’re not interested in these as all the Patriarchs were not represented.

Of course, the very last Pan-Orthodox Synod was only last month (or maybe the month before?) but it was an unusual one as it sat only to discuss the matter of Patriarch Irineos and the scandal in the Jerusalem Church. As such it was merely a matter of discipline and not faith.

James

[quote:2ihj25y0]That link didn’t work for me, so I don’t know if it will help… but what I’m looking for is a few of the most recent Councils and what they added to the EO faith.[/quote:2ihj25y0]

The link certainly worked when I posted it but the site does appear to be down at the moment. 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.

I’ll try to help you with the sorts of things you’re looking for, 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.

It sounds like what you’re interested in is whether we Orthodox do develop doctrines or not. Our argument would be this. New dogmas cannot be developed because the whole faith was revealed to the Apostles and we cannot change it (we don’t hold to the ‘seed of the faith’ idea). Some development, however is legitimate if it is convined to a development in our understanding of or the language used to describe an existing doctrine. This is, we contend, exactly what the 7 ECs we hold in common did. We do not believe that at Nicea people didn’t know that the Holy Spirit was a co-equal Hypostasis of God simply because they chose to end the Creed with ‘And in the Holy Spirit’, but that this was discovered before Constantinople (and I’m sure you don’t either). We just believe that by the time of Constantinople, heresies had forced the Church to elaborate on the languaged used to describe what had always been believed.

The reason we oppose doctrinal development as (perhaps only seemingly) espoused by the RCC is not that we oppose such development as was made in the first 7 councils, but because at least some of the post-Schism (and one pre-Schism) doctrinal developments held by the RCC seem to be of a different kind entirely (especially in their most extreme expressions which, from discussing things with you, the RCC seems to have developed back to a position closer to ours). We simply cannot find any basis in Scripture or Holy Tradition for doctrines like Papal Infallibility or the Immaculate Conception so, to us at least, they look like inventions rather than legitimate developments (I accept that they probably look different from your side). If it is new dogma being defined at an Orthodox council that you are looking for, you simply won’t find it – but then you won’t find it in the first 7 ECs either.

James

[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.
[/quote:26fvf1se]
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?

Thanks James,
Scott[/quote:26fvf1se]

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.

James

Scott,

[quote:1vdbuxqs]EO’s seems to harp on the “develping doctrine” issue, so I’m wondering if there is a way to educate myself of the difference in “development”….. I’m looking for some Councils (that bind the entire EO Church) that have happened in the last 600 years or so.[/quote:1vdbuxqs]

While I think I understand what you’re asking, the question is phrasing things in a way which I think (upon reflection) no Orthodox Christian could credibly accept.

The age of the Imperial Councils does not coincide with the revelation of the Church of the New Testament (which was aprox. 30 A.D.), but began only in 325 A.D. That they were [i:1vdbuxqs]Imperial[/i:1vdbuxqs] synods is quite clear; they were sponsored and required the approval of the Emperor. This is not of course what made them authoritative – that was the mutual consent of the Church and their confirmation with time. However, it is certainly the manner of their origin and organization. And in large part, it is why there have not been any for quite some time.

Obviously, with it’s power (both temporal and ecclessiastical – at least within it’s own communion) and resources, the Popes could take that role as “Emperor” for westerners. Indeed, this was part of the seed of the Latin schism – when the [i:1vdbuxqs]western portion[/i:1vdbuxqs] of the Roman Empire collapsed in the fifth century (it’s a mistake to say the [i:1vdbuxqs]entire[/i:1vdbuxqs] Empire fell then – this betrays an incredible ignorance of the reality that the Emperor and supreme senate had moved to [b:1vdbuxqs]Constantinople[/b:1vdbuxqs] some centuries earlier), the Popes were the only ones of sufficient prestige and organizational capacity to hold the various Christian peoples together through a period of tremendous chaos and misery. While that was a lofty service, it also got the Popes used to lots of power (both secular and religious) over both common men and princes. In later centuries, this would be taken for a [i:1vdbuxqs]dogma[/i:1vdbuxqs], with grotesque manifestations like the “two swords” theory in which the Pope is not only the head of the Church, but even over kings in temporal affairs (read the Papal Bull [i:1vdbuxqs]Unum Sanctum[/i:1vdbuxqs][/url:1vdbuxqs] of Pope Boniface VIII for a clear, and disturbing, summary of these teaching.)

The Imperial age came, and it went – thus, the Ecumenical Councils as we knew them once, came and went. This says nothing of the Church though, coming and going, or the possibility of finding some other way to organize an “Ecumenical” Synod should the need arise and circumstances permit. You have to remember, much like the centuries before the legalization of Christianity under St.Constantine (Edict of Milan, 313 A.D.), in the centuries after the fall of Constantinople and the Imperial Throne, the Church has existed for most of that time in a situation of persecution – whether it be at the hands of Germano-Latin aggression, the Muslims, or the Communists. In neither the old age of persecutions, or the latter, were there “Ecumenical/Imperial” Synods.

Scott,

[quote:2jr9a177]While I welcome your addition to the forum and this thread, I would prefer to continue my discussion with James…. I have found in the past that he is able to answer questions about the Orthodox with without as much anti-Latin rhetoric. [/quote:2jr9a177]

Cop.

Out.

Telling you why Orthodoxy does not accept later Latin-Christian maxims, is not “anti-Latin rhetoric.”

And if you don’t want others to comment upon your statements, post them privately.

Scott,

I don’t think that I can answer your question on the Pan-Orthodox and local synods better than Augustine already has. Certainly his take on who authorised the local synods and how they became accepted by the whole Church is exactly what I would have said (though maybe not with identical words – mine would have been liable to be more long-winded).

Ignoring the last two posts, where you two both seem to be having a go at each other, I’m not sure why you took offense to Augustine’s explanation. I’m really not sure that I can see any anti-Latin polemics in there, unless perhaps you mean his referring to Latin persecution of the Orthodox? Personally, I don’t see that as polemical as it is a fact that even RCs are usually happy to acknowledge nowadays, hence JPII’s apologies.

As for your last reply to me, I did see your warning as joking, right up until the point where I read your obvious implication that I wasn’t willing to try to understand your side of the argument. [i:2r2f8s3k]That[/i:2r2f8s3k] is what caused me to answer as I did as I found it mildly insulting, especially given that when I ask you to explain your side you rarely seem to want to do so. I also fail to see where I was telling you what you believe. I think you should read my posts again. I did tell you how the RC ideas appeared to us and I also asked if that perception was true. That is hardly comparing and contrasting our beliefs and as yet I seem to be the only person answering questions, which isn’t exactly conducive to a discussion.

As far as I can see up to this point, the Orthodox perception to be correct: that the RCC means by ‘doctrinal development’ not the legitimate development of understanding of (or language used to describe) doctrine, but the use of human reason to work out new doctrines logically deductable from revealed doctrine. If, on the other hand, you believe that it is our perception of your position that is wrong rather than that we have a genuine disagreement as to what legitimate development entails then I would appreciate it if you could explain just why you feel we are wong – preferrably by referring to the sorts of doctrines developed in the post-Schism west.

James

[quote:1qztxsdg]Hmmm…

James, I can see that it will be quite impossible for me to discuss anything with you guys…. is it impossible to discuss EO theology without mention of the Roman Catholic Church? I can refer you to 2500+ posts of mine about RCC doctrine that never mention the EO Church…. I just don’t get it. I’m trying to understand EO teachings, and it seems that the everyone on your side can only teach by bring up the “errors” of Rome.

As far as the anti-Latin flavor of the post:
[quote:1qztxsdg]Indeed, this was part of the seed of the Latin schism – when the western portion of the Roman Empire collapsed in the fifth century[/quote:1qztxsdg]
If I hear Latin schism one more time I’m gonna puke…. if you don’t understand that calling it so will bring up ill feelings, I can’t help you or Augustine.
[quote:1qztxsdg] (it’s a mistake to say the entire Empire fell then – this betrays an incredible ignorance of the reality that the Emperor and supreme senate had moved to Constantinople some centuries earlier),[/quote:1qztxsdg]
I never said the entire Empire fell then….. did Augustine copied this from another site, or can he read my mind>?
[quote:1qztxsdg]with grotesque manifestations like …… clear, and disturbing, summary of these teaching.) [/quote:1qztxsdg]
Rrrrrright…… no polemics there…. :rolleyes:
[quote:1qztxsdg]The idea of these Councils issuing clearly infallible edicts in the sense that Roman Catholics have, is anachronistic and involves a caricture of ecclessiastical authority which history does not bear out. [/quote:1qztxsdg]
Again…. is it quite impossible for any of you to answer a question without ending with a reason why I am wrong?

I give up…. thanks for the chat James.[/quote:1qztxsdg]

Scott,

I’m really not quite sure why I received this reply. I will admit that I overlooked the phrase ‘Latin schism’ in Augustine’s post, presumably because it makes no impact on me whatsoever. I dare say the phrase ‘Photian schism’ would pass you by unremarked also though, given the position of Photios as a saint in my Church, I think I could legitimately find that insulting. The thing is, while you may find it insulting I’d hardly say it was polemical. There [i:1qztxsdg]was[/i:1qztxsdg] a schism and from our point of view it was the Latin church that fell away. I would agree that it might be more sensitively phrased on an RC forum, however.

All the other things you’ve brought up seem to be reactions to Augustine’s post, not mine. Just because i endorsed his view of who authorised the councils doesn’t mean that I’m privy to his thoughts when he posts, so I’m not sure why you’d think I would be able to explain his comments. Perhaps some of Augustine’s language was less than tactful but I really can’t see that it is wrong for him to criticise extremist interpretations of RC teachings any more than I would think it was wrong for you to criticise, for instance, the phyletism that some have read into our teachings (and which was condemned as heresy at a council, by the way).

As for talking about Orthodox teachings, you’re right, I can tell you of them without referring to your teachings and I try to do so as far as possible (I’m pretty sure that with one exception my references to the RC teachings in this thread were all questions – most of which remain unanswered, by the way). Sometimes, however, I need to know what you teach because so often I’ve told RCs one thing only to have them understand something quite different. I’m possibly over-hasty with regards to you in this respect and if so I apologise, but given the fact that my answers get reinterpreted so often by RCs in forums to mean whatever they want to hear, I’m naturally wary.

I’ll make you a deal if you like. Why don’t we continue this conversation, leaving any ill feelings behind us (because it started fairly well and you are certainly one of the most open-minded RCs I’m acquainted with) and I’ll agree not to contrast Orthodox teachings with those of the RCC if you agree to answer my questions when I don’t understand RC teachings? If that isn’t acceptable to you then I’m afraid I’ll have to call this a day and quit the forum, as you are the only person here I can get anything approaching a civilised discussion out of, and I can do that elsewhere (on religiousforums).

I sincerely apologise if anything I wrote either in this post or previously has upset you as that was not my intention.

James

who exactly is St. Photios?

[quote:2noaaoxv]
[quote:2noaaoxv]I dare say the phrase ‘Photian schism’ would pass you by unremarked also though, given the position of Photios as a saint in my Church, I think I could legitimately find that insulting.[/quote:2noaaoxv]
For the record…. I have not, and will not use that phrase…. in one of our first conversations at RF(if memory serves) we chatted about St. Photios. His feast day is one of the issues that still irks the Roman Catholic Church in relation to unity, ……but that’s a non-issue with me personally.
[/quote:2noaaoxv]

Oh, sorry, I can see how you might misunderstand what I wrote. I didn’t mean to imply that you used the term Photian schism yourself, just that it would probably not make much of an impact on you if you read it in another RC’s post. That’s the same as happened with Augustine’s Latin schism phrase. I would have written Great Schism myself but it didn’t exactly leap out at me as potentially offensive when I read it. It’s fine if you’ve exhausted the Ecumenical Councils topic and I’m glad that I needn’t give up on this forum completely (though with the exceptions of a couple of you – who probably know who I mean – I feel that it’s impossible to have much of a discussion here without it degenerating into vitriol. Is this the way it usually is on RC forums, because I’ve noticed that we seem to get along much better on neutral ground? Maybe it’s the ‘common enemy’ of the Protestants on those other forums that makes us overlook our differences to an extent?

James