is Vatican 2 orthodox???

dóxatotheó said:

how so

Click to expand...

It’s easy to see you just want to debate Orthodoxy vs Catholicism you tried to guise it but you did not do a very good job. How the thread has turned out bears witness to this. You are debating our faith in our home forum which is against the rules.

dóxatotheó said:

Not really I never heard Orthodox patriarchs debating on whether or not Catholic baptism is legitimate

Click to expand...

I thought you had to get baptized as Orthodox upon conversion.

dóxatotheó said:

yes

Click to expand...

I could be looking at this wrong, but those synods seem to be related to the specific churches and not universal to Orthodoxy. Each church (Greek, Russian, Romanian, Serbian, etc) have a synod structure but the overall Eastern Orthodox Church does not that I can find. So if that's not correct, point me to some better information.

chevyontheriver said:

You get a lot of mileage coming into a Catholic forum and preaching to us that we are ignorant. I think you really were not looking for any answers but instead trying to either attack us or convert us. I'm not sure I can believe you when you say you "wanna believe Catholicism to be true".

Click to expand...

.

dóxatotheó said:

I responded with that and literally explained what this thread was for and explained what i meant

Click to expand...

There are other forums you could of brought this to and you know it.

dóxatotheó said:

heres a link Ecumenical Councils - OrthodoxWiki for our ecumencial councils this is completely not what the thread was for if you wanna debate this just go to the debate forum and I would respond

Click to expand...

That link has nothing to do with the synods you say are authoritative but rather the seven ecumenical councils accepted by Orthodoxy.

I'm not "debating" any more than you are, but rather seeking information. No need to start a different thread.

But that link speaks well to the problems the Orthodox have with knowing how a council can be ecumenical once the Pope was removed from the picture.

"Receptionism was formed primarily in opposition to Roman Catholic viewpoints on the same question. For the Roman Catholic Church, a council's ecumenicity is primarily determined by its ratification by the Pope of Rome. Orthodoxy does not have the same ecclesiological structure as Rome, however, and so Khomiakov and others attempted to formulate another model by which the infallibility of Ecumenical Councils may be determined."

It then speaks to the problem with this novel idea of "Receptionism" because it requires that in order to be ecumenical it is received by the whole church. But that test fails with Chalcedon because 2 of the 3 patriarchs did not accept that council (only the Pope) and the patriarchs of Alexandria and Antioch break away to form the Oriental Orthdox Church. Yet the EO accept it as an ecumenical council. So while the Orthodox came up with this idea of "Receptionism" in the 19th century to answer the question of what makes a council ecumenical when they split ties with the Pope, it can't hold up historically at all.

So, thus their conclusion: "At the current time, the episcopacy of the Church has not as yet put forward a universal definition as to what precisely lends a council its ecumenicity."

Which appears to be why you accept 7 ecumenical councils from the first 1000 years of the church and have had none since -- you have no clue how to have one ratified without the Pope.

MOD HAT

Thread closed for review

MOD HAT