How should one view synods?

When giving in this answer (June 14th), Bessarion explained the difference of the Greek and Latin doctrine on this subject. The Latins, he said, allow that now, and until the day of the last judgment, departed souls are purified by fire, and are thus liberated from their sins; so that, he who has sinned the most will be a longer time undergoing purification, whereas he whose sins are less will be absolved the sooner, with the aid of the Church; but in the future life they allow the eternal, and not the purgatorial fire. Thus the Latins receive both the temporal and the eternal fire, and call the first the purgatorial fire. On the other hand, the Greeks teach of one eternal fire alone, understanding that the temporal punishment of sinful souls consists in that they for a time depart into a place of darkness and sorrow, are punished by being deprived of the Divine light, and are purified—that is, liberated from this place of darkness and woe—by means of prayers, the Holy Eucharist, and deeds of charity, and not by fire. The Greeks also believe, that until the union of the souls to the bodies, as the souls of sinners do not suffer full punishment, so also those of the saints do not enjoy entire bliss. But the Latins, agreeing with the Greeks in the first point, do not allow the last one, affirming that the souls of saints have already received their full heavenly reward. [4]

Click to expand...

tbstor said:

I have been studying Orthodoxy for a few months now and have a question regarding synods. Today I was reading into reformed theology for the first time in years and came across Cyril Lucaris who was both Patriarch of Alexandria and later Ecumenical Patriarch of Constantinople. It is speculated that he had Calvinist sympathies and wrote a confession affirming Calvinist doctrines (1629). This confession was condemned at the Synod of Jerusalem (1672).

I am not looking to discuss the merits of Calvinism or reformed theology. Rather, my question is in regard to the authority of synods. Since it is not an ecumenical council, is it binding on the whole Church? If it is not, is it binding in some local sense? I'm interested because this particular synod affirmed some odd things:

Article XVII.—The Eucharist is both a sacrament and a sacrifice, in which the very body and blood of Christ are truly and really (ἀληθῶς καὶ πραγματικῶς) present under the figure and type (ἐν εἴδει καὶ τύπῳ) of bread and wine, are offered to God by the hands of the priest as a real though unbloody sacrifice for all the faithful, whether living or dead (ὑπὲρ πάντων τῶν εὐσεβῶν ζώντων καὶ τεθνεώτων), and are received by the hand and the mouth of unworthy as well as worthy communicants, though with opposite effects. The Lutheran doctrine is rejected, and the Romish doctrine of transubstantiation (μεταβολή, μετουσίωσις) is taught as strongly as words can make it; but it is disclaimed to give an explanation of the mode in which this mysterious and miraculous change of the elements takes place.

Article XVIII.—The souls of the departed are either at rest or in torment, according to their conduct in life; but their condition will not be perfect till the resurrection of the body. The souls of those who die in a state of penitence (μετανοήσαντες), without having brought forth fruits of repentance, or satisfactions (ἱκανοποίησις), depart into Hades (ἀπέρχεσθαι εἰς ᾄδου), and there they must suffer the punishment for their sins; but they may be delivered by the prayers of the priests and the alms of their kindred, especially by the unbloody sacrifice of the mass (μαγάλα δυναμένης μάλιστα τῆς ἀναιμάκτου θυσίας), which individuals offer for their departed relatives, and which the Catholic and Apostolic Church daily offers for all alike. The liberation from this intervening state of purification will take place before the resurrection and the general judgment, but the time is unknown.​

These two affirmations don't appear to be in accord with the teachings of the Orthodox Church I have come across. Namely, the Orthodox Church doesn't adopt the Catholic teaching of transubstantiation wholesale or the teaching of purgatory (although the latter may be accepted by an individual believer, I think).

I'd appreciate some help on this one!

Click to expand...

tbstor said:

μετουσίωσις

Click to expand...

tbstor said:

I have been studying Orthodoxy for a few months now and have a question regarding synods. Today I was reading into reformed theology for the first time in years and came across Cyril Lucaris who was both Patriarch of Alexandria and later Ecumenical Patriarch of Constantinople. It is speculated that he had Calvinist sympathies and wrote a confession affirming Calvinist doctrines (1629). This confession was condemned at the Synod of Jerusalem (1672).

I am not looking to discuss the merits of Calvinism or reformed theology. Rather, my question is in regard to the authority of synods. Since it is not an ecumenical council, is it binding on the whole Church? If it is not, is it binding in some local sense? I'm interested because this particular synod affirmed some odd things:

Article XVII.—The Eucharist is both a sacrament and a sacrifice, in which the very body and blood of Christ are truly and really (ἀληθῶς καὶ πραγματικῶς) present under the figure and type (ἐν εἴδει καὶ τύπῳ) of bread and wine, are offered to God by the hands of the priest as a real though unbloody sacrifice for all the faithful, whether living or dead (ὑπὲρ πάντων τῶν εὐσεβῶν ζώντων καὶ τεθνεώτων), and are received by the hand and the mouth of unworthy as well as worthy communicants, though with opposite effects. The Lutheran doctrine is rejected, and the Romish doctrine of transubstantiation (μεταβολή, μετουσίωσις) is taught as strongly as words can make it; but it is disclaimed to give an explanation of the mode in which this mysterious and miraculous change of the elements takes place.

Article XVIII.—The souls of the departed are either at rest or in torment, according to their conduct in life; but their condition will not be perfect till the resurrection of the body. The souls of those who die in a state of penitence (μετανοήσαντες), without having brought forth fruits of repentance, or satisfactions (ἱκανοποίησις), depart into Hades (ἀπέρχεσθαι εἰς ᾄδου), and there they must suffer the punishment for their sins; but they may be delivered by the prayers of the priests and the alms of their kindred, especially by the unbloody sacrifice of the mass (μαγάλα δυναμένης μάλιστα τῆς ἀναιμάκτου θυσίας), which individuals offer for their departed relatives, and which the Catholic and Apostolic Church daily offers for all alike. The liberation from this intervening state of purification will take place before the resurrection and the general judgment, but the time is unknown.​

These two affirmations don't appear to be in accord with the teachings of the Orthodox Church I have come across. Namely, the Orthodox Church doesn't adopt the Catholic teaching of transubstantiation wholesale or the teaching of purgatory (although the latter may be accepted by an individual believer, I think).

I'd appreciate some help on this one!

Click to expand...

ArmyMatt said:

they are accepted in the light of how the Church interprets the council. no synod just stands on its own apart from the Church's understanding.

Click to expand...

All4Christ said:

Yep, this synod is a key example of this. Anything taken outside of the Church’s understanding as a whole can be misleading. If I read the text of this synod without additional context, it could be quite concerning depending on how you understand it.

Click to expand...