Oecumenical

[Xeno.of.athens]

Consider this agenda for an oecumenical council for Christian churches that accept the Nicene Creed:

1. Reaffirmation of the Nicene Creed: To start, the council could affirm the Nicene Creed as the shared foundation of their faith, and the cornerstone of their unity.
2. Unity and Common Witness: The council could discuss the ways in which Christians can better work together to share the gospel and be a witness to the world.
3. Interfaith Relations: The council could address the importance of interfaith relations and the ways in which Christians can engage in dialogue with people of other faith traditions.
4. Social Justice and the Environment: The council could address the urgent need for action on social justice issues and environmental concerns.
5. Ecumenical Relations and Reconciliation: The council could work towards a deeper understanding of the differences between Christian churches, with the goal of fostering greater unity and reconciliation.
6. Mission and Evangelism: The council could discuss the role of mission and evangelism in the modern world and the ways in which Christians can collaborate to share the gospel.
7. Biblical Interpretation: The council could explore the importance of a shared understanding of the Bible and discuss the role of biblical interpretation in the life of the church.
8. Church Structure and Leadership: The council could address the need for a common understanding of the structure and leadership of the church, including the role of bishops, priests, and deacons.

This is just one potential agenda for an ecumenical council. The important thing is that the council focuses on the things that unite Christians, and works towards greater understanding, unity, and reconciliation.

Would you want your church to participate?

If so, why? If not then why not?

 

[Paidiske]

These are all good things to discuss, but in various ways, these are all things on which there are already many forums for ecumenical discussion.

I would want to be very clear about the intention of a formal ecumenical council. What would it be aiming to achieve, that is not being achieved through existing channels?

 

[Maria Billingsley]

Consider this agenda for an oecumenical council for Christian churches that accept the Nicene Creed:

1. Reaffirmation of the Nicene Creed: To start, the council could affirm the Nicene Creed as the shared foundation of their faith, and the cornerstone of their unity.
2. Unity and Common Witness: The council could discuss the ways in which Christians can better work together to share the gospel and be a witness to the world.
3. Interfaith Relations: The council could address the importance of interfaith relations and the ways in which Christians can engage in dialogue with people of other faith traditions.
4. Social Justice and the Environment: The council could address the urgent need for action on social justice issues and environmental concerns.
5. Ecumenical Relations and Reconciliation: The council could work towards a deeper understanding of the differences between Christian churches, with the goal of fostering greater unity and reconciliation.
6. Mission and Evangelism: The council could discuss the role of mission and evangelism in the modern world and the ways in which Christians can collaborate to share the gospel.
7. Biblical Interpretation: The council could explore the importance of a shared understanding of the Bible and discuss the role of biblical interpretation in the life of the church.
8. Church Structure and Leadership: The council could address the need for a common understanding of the structure and leadership of the church, including the role of bishops, priests, and deacons.

This is just one potential agenda for an ecumenical council. The important thing is that the council focuses on the things that unite Christians, and works towards greater understanding, unity, and reconciliation.

Would you want your church to participate?

If so, why? If not then why not?

The meaning of interfaith is involving persons of different religious faiths. This is strictly against the foundation of the Gospel. Blessings.

 

[Philip_B]

Reaffirmation of the Nicene Creed: To start, the council could affirm the Nicene Creed as the shared foundation of their faith, and the cornerstone of their unity.

For this to be a truly œcumenical council I believe we would need to affirm the Nicene Creed, being the creed of the 2nd œcumenical council, namely the 1st Council of Constantinople in 381 ad. (sans filioque!)

The answer for me is that Yes I would want my Church to participate. A big part of the reason why I would want my Church to participate in found in John 17.

Jojn 17:20-24 ​

‘I ask not only on behalf of these but also on behalf of those who will believe in me through their word, that they may all be one. As you, Father, are in me and I am in you, may they also be in us, so that the world may believe that you have sent me. The glory that you have given me I have given them, so that they may be one, as we are one, I in them and you in me, that they may become completely one, so that the world may know that you have sent me and have loved them even as you have loved me. Father, I desire that those also, whom you have given me, may be with me where I am, to see my glory, which you have given me because you loved me before the foundation of the world.​

 

[Xeno.of.athens]

These are all good things to discuss, but in various ways, these are all things on which there are already many forums for ecumenical discussion.

I would want to be very clear about the intention of a formal ecumenical council. What would it be aiming to achieve, that is not being achieved through existing channels?

What intention would be most convincing and compelling?

 

[Paidiske]

What intention would be most convincing and compelling?

I'm not sure, to be honest.

 

[Xeno.of.athens]

I'm not sure, to be honest.

I share that uncertainty.

 

[DialecticSkeptic]

The important thing is that the council focuses on the things that unite Christians, and works towards greater understanding, unity, and reconciliation.

Would you want your church to participate?

I wouldn't want my church to participate, no, because the Roman Catholic church (RCC) has not demonstrated any interest in reconciliation as long as it continues to regard Christians like myself as apostate heretics to be cut off or excluded from the society of the faithful, among other penalties. (I am referring specifically to the Council of Trent and its anathemas.) The RCC even characterized the Protestant Reformation as Satanic, regarding it as that old serpent, the perpetual enemy of mankind, stirring up dissensions in the church. Just not exactly feeling the reconciliation vibes from the RCC there, Xeno.

Keep in mind that the phrase anathema sit (let him be anathema) has been used by the RCC to issue doctrinal definitions. As explained by Jimmy Akin at Catholic Answers (Akin 2000),

Catholic scholars have long recognized that when an ecumenical council applies this phrase to a doctrinal matter, then the matter is settled infallibly. ... Thus, when Trent and other ecumenical councils employed anathema sit in regard to doctrinal matters, not only was a judicial penalty prescribed but a doctrinal definition was also made. Today, the judicial penalty may be gone, but the doctrinal definition remains. Everything that was infallibly decided by these councils is still infallibly settled."
​

As established by canon law, that which the church has proposed definitively by the magisterium—that is, "each and every thing which is required to safeguard reverently and to expound faithfully the [one] deposit of faith [entrusted to the church]"—cannot be obstinately denied or doubted without the offense of heresy (Codex Iuris Canonici, c. 749, §1; c. 750–752; c. 754).

 

[Xeno.of.athens]

I wouldn't want my church to participate, no, because the Roman Catholic church (RCC) has not demonstrated any interest in reconciliation as long as it continues to regard Christians like myself as apostate heretics to be cut off or excluded from the society of the faithful, among other penalties. (I am referring specifically to the Council of Trent and its anathemas.) The RCC even characterized the Protestant Reformation as Satanic, regarding it as that old serpent, the perpetual enemy of mankind, stirring up dissensions in the church. Just not exactly feeling the reconciliation vibes from the RCC there, Xeno.

Yes, there are anathemas in the canons and documents of Trent, that is a truth that cannot be gainsaid. Just as there were condemnations of Catholicism and the popes of the day as antichrist in some of the Reformed and Lutheran confessions of faith. The sixteenth and seventeenth centuries were peopled with rather a lot of harshness, is it not so?

 

[Paidiske]

It's not historic harshness that bothers me so much as contemporary rejection. As long as we're barred from communion, our orders aren't recognised, and so on... it seems as if ecumenism is only viewed by some as a one-way street. And that doesn't communicate much respect or genuine mutuality. It's not really very appealing.

 

[DialecticSkeptic]

The sixteenth and seventeenth centuries were peopled with rather a lot of harshness, is it not so?

@Paidiske captured my sentiment exactly. No need for me to repeat it; I shall just direct your attention to her post.

 

[Xeno.of.athens]

It's not historic harshness that bothers me so much as contemporary rejection. As long as we're barred from communion, our orders aren't recognised, and so on... it seems as if ecumenism is only viewed by some as a one-way street. And that doesn't communicate much respect or genuine mutuality. It's not really very appealing.

Only Catholics and those who are in communion with the Catholic church are admitted to communion in Catholic churches. Lutherans have a vaguely similar approach. The idea is that those who are in full agreement with the nature of the Holy Eucharist and Catholic teaching may be said to be in communion with the Pope and the Catholic Church. Is it not true that for many Anglicans and Episcopalians self identifying as in communion with the pope and the Catholic Church of which he is universal bishop, is out of the question? And if that is so, would you want to partake in the Mass within a Catholic parish on the understanding that thereby you agree with Catholic Church teaching?

 

[Xeno.of.athens]

@Paidiske captured my sentiment exactly. No need for me to repeat it; I shall just direct your attention to her post.

This is a matter of practise rather than one of Dogmatic teaching. An ecumenical council might want to address it.

 

[Paidiske]

would you want to partake in the Mass within a Catholic parish on the understanding that thereby you agree with Catholic Church teaching?

Ah; but that's not my understanding. To my mind, sharing around the Lord's table does not have to imply agreement on every point. Insisting on such agreement is exactly part of what I'm objecting to, here.

For the record, I have received the Eucharist during Catholic celebrations when the priest indicated that the table was open (even though I know that is technically against their rules; I figure that's between him and his bishop to sort out). I have no problem with that (just as I have no problem administering communion to any baptised Christian).

 

[Xeno.of.athens]

Ah; but that's not my understanding. To my mind, sharing around the Lord's table does not have to imply agreement on every point. Insisting on such agreement is exactly part of what I'm objecting to, here.

For the record, I have received the Eucharist during Catholic celebrations when the priest indicated that the table was open (even though I know that is technically against their rules; I figure that's between him and his bishop to sort out). I have no problem with that (just as I have no problem administering communion to any baptised Christian).

I see, but for Catholics it is so as a matter of practise but not as a part of Dogma. I imagine a council could fruitfully discuss differences in practise without touching on Dogma.

 

[The Liturgist]

Consider this agenda for an oecumenical council for Christian churches that accept the Nicene Creed:

1. Reaffirmation of the Nicene Creed: To start, the council could affirm the Nicene Creed as the shared foundation of their faith, and the cornerstone of their unity.
2. Unity and Common Witness: The council could discuss the ways in which Christians can better work together to share the gospel and be a witness to the world.
3. Interfaith Relations: The council could address the importance of interfaith relations and the ways in which Christians can engage in dialogue with people of other faith traditions.
4. Social Justice and the Environment: The council could address the urgent need for action on social justice issues and environmental concerns.
5. Ecumenical Relations and Reconciliation: The council could work towards a deeper understanding of the differences between Christian churches, with the goal of fostering greater unity and reconciliation.
6. Mission and Evangelism: The council could discuss the role of mission and evangelism in the modern world and the ways in which Christians can collaborate to share the gospel.
7. Biblical Interpretation: The council could explore the importance of a shared understanding of the Bible and discuss the role of biblical interpretation in the life of the church.
8. Church Structure and Leadership: The council could address the need for a common understanding of the structure and leadership of the church, including the role of bishops, priests, and deacons.

This is just one potential agenda for an ecumenical council. The important thing is that the council focuses on the things that unite Christians, and works towards greater understanding, unity, and reconciliation.

Would you want your church to participate?

If so, why? If not then why not?

I think an ecumenical council to reunite the traditional Christians according to the principle of episcopal autonomy and autocephaly we see in canons 6 and 7 of Nicaea, and at the same time prohibit through its canons various aspects of modernist and post-modernist theology, and liberation theology and other errors, for example, a ban on homosexual marriage, abortion and certain other practices would need to be prohibited through the acts of this council.

Alas I am not holding my breath that this could happen on a truly large scale such as we are discussing, so I think ecumenical reconciliation must be seen as a process of reuniting those churches which agree with the Ecumenical Councils in Nicaea, Constantinople and Ephesus, and which reject iconoclasm as per the Second Council of Nicaea (the theology of which is effectively adhered to by the Oriental Orthodox despite their absence or rather exclusion from the council itself).

 

[Xeno.of.athens]

a ban on homosexual marriage, abortion and certain other practices would need to be prohibited through the acts of this council.

May I ask for clarification on the above, please?

 

[Valletta]

Ah; but that's not my understanding. To my mind, sharing around the Lord's table does not have to imply agreement on every point. Insisting on such agreement is exactly part of what I'm objecting to, here.

For the record, I have received the Eucharist during Catholic celebrations when the priest indicated that the table was open (even though I know that is technically against their rules; I figure that's between him and his bishop to sort out). I have no problem with that (just as I have no problem administering communion to any baptised Christian).

Most who identify as Catholics are not at this moment eligible to receive communion. Catholics have specific rules, which includes fasting (although this is very minor today). Eastern Orthodox have their rules too and I understand they do not allow Catholics to receive the Holy Eucharist in their churches.

 

[DialecticSkeptic]

I think an ecumenical council to reunite the traditional Christians according to the principle of episcopal autonomy and autocephaly we see in canons 6 and 7 of Nicaea ...

It seems practically impossible, to me, for there to be a reunification of the Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox churches "according to the principle of episcopal autonomy" contained in canon 6 of Nicaea, as you suggest, given that the primacy of the bishop of Rome is dogmatically affirmed by the Roman Catholic church (wherein papal primacy refers to authoritative power, the expression, manifestation, and realization in one bishop of the unity of the church and the power of all the bishops), notwithstanding the filioque controversy. As far as I know, that continues to be the primary causes of schism between the Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox churches—although, admittedly, I have not studied the 2007 Ravenna Document.

 

[Xeno.of.athens]

It seems practically impossible, to me, for there to be a reunification of the Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox churches "according to the principle of episcopal autonomy" contained in canon 6 of Nicaea, as you suggest, given that the primacy of the bishop of Rome is dogmatically affirmed by the Roman Catholic church (wherein papal primacy refers to authoritative power, the expression, manifestation, and realization in one bishop of the unity of the church and the power of all the bishops), notwithstanding the filioque controversy. As far as I know, that continues to be the primary causes of schism between the Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox churches—although, admittedly, I have not studied the 2007 Ravenna Document.

An ecumenical conference does not need to achieve Christian Unity in one Church but achieving that would be ideal.

And Canon 6 for Nicaea (325 AD) isn't about a principle of episcopal autonomy. The opposite is true, it is about the privileges of Patriarchal sees.

Canon 6

Let the ancient customs in Egypt, Libya and Pentapolis prevail, that the Bishop of Alexandria have jurisdiction in all these,​

since the like is customary for the Bishop of Rome also.​

Likewise in Antioch and the other provinces, let the Churches retain their privileges.​

​

And this is to be universally understood, that if any one be made bishop without the consent of the Metropolitan, the great Synod has declared that such a man ought not to be a bishop.​

​

If, however, two or three bishops shall from natural love of contradiction, oppose the common suffrage of the rest, it being reasonable and in accordance with the ecclesiastical law, then let the choice of the majority prevail.​

​

"In the sixth canon, the Council formalizes the existing tradition of giving the metropolitan bishop highest authority over his "province", including the right to decide who is a bishop. Rome, Alexandria, and Antioch are named as metropolitan sees, though there are others in smaller provinces. The bishop of Aelia has a place of high honor, but lacks the authority of a metropolitan, and so does not have the right to confirm all bishops in the province." (Commentary on the First Council of Nicaea)