Oecumenical

[The Liturgist]

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)

Canon 6 specifically establishes that Alexandria and Antioch are autocephalous if read together with Canon 7 concerning Aelia/Jerusalem. And there are other canons from later councils. Suffice it to say, they provide a doctrinal basis for the Roman church to say what was historically the case: that the Pope is the Patriarch of Western Europe, but that the Eastern churches are autocephalous and his authority there would extend only to the juridicial appellate functions presently exercised in his absence by the Patriarch of New Rome / Constantinople under I think Canon 28 of Chalcedon.

 

[Xeno.of.athens]

Canon 6 specifically establishes that Alexandria and Antioch are autocephalous if read together with Canon 7 concerning Aelia/Jerusalem. And there are other canons from later councils. Suffice it to say, they provide a doctrinal basis for the Roman church to say what was historically the case: that the Pope is the Patriarch of Western Europe, but that the Eastern churches are autocephalous and his authority there would extend only to the juridicial appellate functions presently exercised in his absence by the Patriarch of New Rome / Constantinople under I think Canon 28 of Chalcedon.

All more or less true,

Yet Catholics believe in the development of doctrine.

 

[The Liturgist]

All more or less true,

Yet Catholics believe in the development of doctrine.

Well you can therefore believe in the development of doctrine further to accommodate a restoration of recognition of the autocephaly of the Orthodox. Because that is one of the two main things that has to be resolved for reunion, the other being the filioque. On that there is room for progress, since the Roman church has never used the filioque in Greek versions of the creed and I recall reading that it is the view of the Catholic Church that the filioque if expressed in Greek would be erroneous. Since the Orthodox primarily spoke Greek they encountered it in Greek and the subtle semantic differences between Greek and Latin could have led to the misunderstanding. Because there is a way of understanding the filioque which avoids the aspects that the Orthodox objected to.

 

[Xeno.of.athens]

Well you can therefore believe in the development of doctrine further to accommodate a restoration of recognition of the autocephaly of the Orthodox. Because that is one of the two main things that has to be resolved for reunion, the other being the filioque. On that there is room for progress, since the Roman church has never used the filioque in Greek versions of the creed and I recall reading that it is the view of the Catholic Church that the filioque if expressed in Greek would be erroneous. Since the Orthodox primarily spoke Greek they encountered it in Greek and the subtle semantic differences between Greek and Latin could have led to the misunderstanding. Because there is a way of understanding the filioque which avoids the aspects that the Orthodox objected to.

yep, the subtle way is "who proceeds from the Father through the Son"

 

[Philip_B]

yep, the subtle way is "who proceeds from the Father through the Son"

Spoken as a true member of the Western Patriarchy. What is the difference between Western and Eastern Christians? Western Christians don't think the filioque matters, and Eastern Christians think it does. I have not used the Filioque for ten years now, and increasingly I wonder why we continue to have it there, it is a vehicle for misrepresenting the Trinity in hierarchical terms. You started the thread talking about the Nicene Creed, in terms of an œcumenical council, and the truth is that the Nicene Creed of the œcumenical councils does not have the filioque. So do you want an œcumenical council or do you want the filioque more? You choose!

 

[Xeno.of.athens]

Spoken as a true member of the Western Patriarchy. What is the difference between Western and Eastern Christians? Western Christians don't think the filioque matters, and Eastern Christians think it does. I have not used the Filioque for ten years now, and increasingly I wonder why we continue to have it there, it is a vehicle for misrepresenting the Trinity in hierarchical terms. You started the thread talking about the Nicene Creed, in terms of an œcumenical council, and the truth is that the Nicene Creed of the œcumenical councils does not have the filioque. So do you want an œcumenical council or do you want the filioque more? You choose!

Me?

I'm happy without it.

But maybe there's some dogmatic reason for the Catholic Church to want "from the Father through the Son" in there. I do not know.

 

[The Liturgist]

May I ask for clarification on the above, please?

Certainly. The main reason to have an ecumenical council now would be for it through its acts and canons to prohibit homosexual marriage, to depose clergy in homosexual relationships, to prohibit clergy and laity from seeking to undergo a “sex-change”, and to prohibit clergy and laity from doing anything in opposition to the pro-life movement, with respect to both abortion and doctor-assisted suicide, and to depose any clergy who procured or facilitated or encouraged a parishioner to have an abortion or assisted suicide.

As I see it, the pro-life issue and sexual morality are the two primary issues facing the church at present, analogous in importance to iconoclasm and the desecration of relics that precipitated the Second Council of Nicaea.

Also just as Nicaea II also required clergy to wear vestments, as a secondary issue, an ecumenical council held now could prohibit theological modernism and postmodernism more broadly.

 

[The Liturgist]

Spoken as a true member of the Western Patriarchy. What is the difference between Western and Eastern Christians? Western Christians don't think the filioque matters, and Eastern Christians think it does. I have not used the Filioque for ten years now, and increasingly I wonder why we continue to have it there, it is a vehicle for misrepresenting the Trinity in hierarchical terms. You started the thread talking about the Nicene Creed, in terms of an œcumenical council, and the truth is that the Nicene Creed of the œcumenical councils does not have the filioque. So do you want an œcumenical council or do you want the filioque more? You choose!

This is a very good point.

 

[The Liturgist]

Me?

I'm happy without it.

But maybe there's some dogmatic reason for the Catholic Church to want "from the Father through the Son" in there. I do not know.

Well ultimately retaining the current form, which is “from the father and the son” would torpedo an ecumenical council, and even the modified form could jeopardize it, because the canons of the Councils of Ephesus and of Chalcedon prohibit modifying the text of the Niceno-Constantinopolitan Creed of 381.

 

[Xeno.of.athens]

Well ultimately retaining the current form, which is “from the father and the son” would torpedo an ecumenical council, and even the modified form could jeopardize it, because the canons of the Councils of Ephesus and of Chalcedon prohibit modifying the text of the Niceno-Constantinopolitan Creed of 381.

The council of Florence offered "from the Father through the Son" about 550 years ago. It is in the canons. It is part of Catholic doctrine/dogma.

 

[PsaltiChrysostom]

The council of Florence offered "from the Father through the Son" about 550 years ago. It is in the canons. It is part of Catholic doctrine/dogma.

And it would still be problematic for the Eastern Orthodox churches, as Florence was condemned by St. Mark of Ephesus and by later Orthodox figures.

 

[The Liturgist]

The council of Florence offered "from the Father through the Son" about 550 years ago. It is in the canons. It is part of Catholic doctrine/dogma.

The Council of Florence is completely off the table from an Orthodox perspective. As my EO friends @HTacianas @Ignatius the Kiwi and @prodromos can confirm, St. Mark of Ephesus is glorified as a saint, because he encouraged the Orthodox people to reject the council, and they did this, heroically, since it was plainly obvious that rejecting it would risk Turkocratia, and indeed that happened.

And Turkocratia was an extremely high price to have to pay for religious freedom, as any Bulgarian in the 1870s or any Pontic Greek, Armenian, Antiochian or Syriac/Assyrian Christian in 1915* could tell you, and indeed as Western Europe experienced with the conquest of Hungary and the near-conquest of Vienna, indeed both at Vienna and Loretto it was a miracle Western Europe was delivered. However, the high price that the Orthodox paid to retain their autocephaly was worth it in that no Orthodox church ever went through anything like the Reformation and Counter Reformation.

My feeling concerning Florence is objectively, Western Europe should have not made military assistance conditional on its outcome but moved to save the Byzantine Empire, since it was largely a result of the damage inflicted on New Rome and its military and economic infrastructure by Venice in the Fourth Crusade that the Ottomans became in a position to conquer.

*Or for that matter any Arab; there was a reason why Prince Faisal’s father started the revolt later led by T.E. Lawrence during WWI. However the Christians did get the worst of it.

 

[The Liturgist]

And it would still be problematic for the Eastern Orthodox churches, as Florence was condemned by St. Mark of Ephesus and by later Orthodox figures.

Indeed.

 

[Xeno.of.athens]

And it would still be problematic for the Eastern Orthodox churches, as Florence was condemned by St. Mark of Ephesus and by later Orthodox figures.

The Council of Florence is completely off the table from an Orthodox perspective. As my EO friends @HTacianas @Ignatius the Kiwi and @prodromos can confirm, St. Mark of Ephesus is glorified as a saint, because he encouraged the Orthodox people to reject the council, and they did this, heroically, since it was plainly obvious that rejecting it would risk Turkocratia, and indeed that happened.

And Turkocratia was an extremely high price to have to pay for religious freedom, as any Bulgarian in the 1870s or any Pontic Greek, Armenian, Antiochian or Syriac/Assyrian Christian in 1915* could tell you, and indeed as Western Europe experienced with the conquest of Hungary and the near-conquest of Vienna, indeed both at Vienna and Loretto it was a miracle Western Europe was delivered. However, the high price that the Orthodox paid to retain their autocephaly was worth it in that no Orthodox church ever went through anything like the Reformation and Counter Reformation.

My feeling concerning Florence is objectively, Western Europe should have not made military assistance conditional on its outcome but moved to save the Byzantine Empire, since it was largely a result of the damage inflicted on New Rome and its military and economic infrastructure by Venice in the Fourth Crusade that the Ottomans became in a position to conquer.

*Or for that matter any Arab; there was a reason why Prince Faisal’s father started the revolt later led by T.E. Lawrence during WWI. However the Christians did get the worst of it.

I guess we're not an oecumenical council ourselves. Perhaps a few bishops would do better than we. Let's hope so, God is good, people can be too.

 

[The Liturgist]

I guess we're not an oecumenical council ourselves. Perhaps a few bishops would do better than we. Let's hope so, God is good, people can be too.

Are you suggesting it would somehow be bad if the Orthodox Church maintained its traditional faith?

 

[ViaCrucis]

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

Interfaith relations doesn't mean going and worshiping at a synagogue or mosque. It simply means engagement in conversation with our neighbors of different religious convictions. Interfaith dialogue, conversation, and relationships are a fundamental part of the Church's evangelical mission in bearing witness to Christ and the Good News of Christ to the world. That's exactly what St. Paul did when he went to the Areopagus in Athens, he even quoted Greek poets and philosophers in order to build a bridge of communication with the students of philosophy there.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[Xeno.of.athens]

Are you suggesting it would somehow be bad if the Orthodox Church maintained its traditional faith?

Why do you think that? I said nothing to indicate it.

 

[Maria Billingsley]

Interfaith relations doesn't mean going and worshiping at a synagogue or mosque. It simply means engagement in conversation with our neighbors of different religious convictions. Interfaith dialogue, conversation, and relationships are a fundamental part of the Church's evangelical mission in bearing witness to Christ and the Good News of Christ to the world. That's exactly what St. Paul did when he went to the Areopagus in Athens, he even quoted Greek poets and philosophers in order to build a bridge of communication with the students of philosophy there.

-CryptoLutheran

I don't think you are allowed to evangelize in an interfaith setting. It is about building a bridge where a deep divide exists through different means but using religion as the catalyst. If one has convictions within their faith, as I do, it would be very difficult to share different gods when we only have one God and He revealed Himself as Jesus Christ of Nazareth. I have no problem being friends with people of other faiths however, I do draw the line when I am forced to find a common bridge within each faith when there may be none. Blessings.

 

[concretecamper]

Ugh, it isn't about the filioque. It is about the authority of Rome. It all comes down to obedience.

 

[concretecamper]

and, I'm sick and tired about all the whining that goes on about not being able to receive the Holy Eucharist. Get over yourselves. One faith, One Baptism, One communion. It ain't that complicated