- Feb 20, 2023
- 3
- 0
- 35
- Country
- United Kingdom
- Faith
- Eastern Orthodox
- Marital Status
- Single
Hi there, I'm a convert to Orthodox Christianity who relatively recently had something of a crisis of faith, where I felt like my faith in the Church was completely unravelling. Not my belief in God, but my faith in the claims that the Church makes about itself. For the most part this passed, though a slightly uncomfortable feeling has remained.
Today I happened to wonder whether a full Church Council would still be possible, or whether the lack of an Emperor to call it would preclude that. In my reading, I was quite shocked to discover that there is no actual definition for what constitutes an Ecumenical Council. There seem to be two opposing views, neither of which can be entirely correct given the facts of history. One is an authoritative, top-down approach, which is that the council is authoritative in and of itself due to the authority of the hierarchs. Buy this cannot be the case as we recognise that there have been so-called "Robber Councils." The alternative view is 'Receptionism' which is the idea that what makes a Council truly valid is its reception by the entire Church. But this cannot be true, as at Chalcedon, it was not received by the entire Church, hence the Schism. Some could argue that the the people who accepted it were the Church, and those who did not accept it put themselves outside of it. But that is circular reasoning, and goes against what happened with the so-called "Robber Councils" - they could have just said the same thing then, that those who disagreed put themselves outside the Church by doing so. The other problem with the Receptionist view is that early Councils clearly did not see themselves in that light. They did not wait for the whole Church to receive them before acting upon their decisions. The Receptionist view seems to have been developed fairly late as a way to explain the phenomenon of "Robber Councils," but when considered in the light of the statements and behaviour of the early Councils, and the Chalcedonian Schism, is simply doesn't make sense.
From what I can see, the only option remaining is simply that what happens is what is supposed to happen, because it happened. But thst undermines the idea that doctrine is correct based on its actual truth and internal consistency, and leaves it entirely to the playing out of events in history. It also leaves open the possibility that there could be some Council in the future that changes doctrine in a way that people today would consider unconscionable, and would say go completely against Tradition. Such as female Priests, or adding new books to the canon of Scripture, or scrapping the Liturgy, or something else of a similarly extreme nature.
Now, some might say that as the Holy Spirit guides the Church, and Christ promised that the gates of hell would not overcome it, that will not happen. OK, but that still doesn't explain what defines an Ecumenical Council, what makes it an Ecumenical Council, it can only define them as being such from a position of hindsight by the fact of that being what was handed down.
And then I realised that the doctrine of the Holy Spirit guiding the Church and Christ saying that the gates of hell will not overcome it completely undermines the Church's claims about the central importance of free will. If people have free will, then everyone could apostasise and there be no-one left for the Holy Spirit to work through. If people have free will, every Orthodox Christian on earth could decide to follow a different confession, or a different religion, or no religion at all. The claim that there is this absolute certainty about the future of the Church cannot be reconciled with free will. And yet so many of the arguments that the Church Fathers made about doctrine were based on the supposed truth of free will. The entire basis of the Church's doctrine on sin and repentance, on asceticism, on holiness and Sainthood, and the repudiation of things like astrology, rely on free will.
This stuff is all just so much more messy than I realised. I never had the chance to get into this stuff beforehand as I did not receive catechesis, and my Priest was very keen to baptise me. I was Baptised after four months of attending Liturgy, and that was because I made my Priest wait for an extra month, or it would have been three months.
It's really difficult because on the one hand, I'm glad I didn't wait and have more thorough teaching cos if I did I might not have been Baptised, and I really do love the Church, but on the other hand I'm struggling with the thought that to continue I will have to switch my brain off and force myself to accept things that just don't make sense. I have no problem with miracles and the Resurrection, things like that, I don't mean that, what I mean is the internal consistency on what the Church claims about the Church. This issue of what exactly makes an Ecumenical Council and Ecumenical Council doesn't seem to have an answer. Every potential answer seems to have a flaw in it. Can anyone explain this in a way that makes sense and is consistent?
Thank you.
Today I happened to wonder whether a full Church Council would still be possible, or whether the lack of an Emperor to call it would preclude that. In my reading, I was quite shocked to discover that there is no actual definition for what constitutes an Ecumenical Council. There seem to be two opposing views, neither of which can be entirely correct given the facts of history. One is an authoritative, top-down approach, which is that the council is authoritative in and of itself due to the authority of the hierarchs. Buy this cannot be the case as we recognise that there have been so-called "Robber Councils." The alternative view is 'Receptionism' which is the idea that what makes a Council truly valid is its reception by the entire Church. But this cannot be true, as at Chalcedon, it was not received by the entire Church, hence the Schism. Some could argue that the the people who accepted it were the Church, and those who did not accept it put themselves outside of it. But that is circular reasoning, and goes against what happened with the so-called "Robber Councils" - they could have just said the same thing then, that those who disagreed put themselves outside the Church by doing so. The other problem with the Receptionist view is that early Councils clearly did not see themselves in that light. They did not wait for the whole Church to receive them before acting upon their decisions. The Receptionist view seems to have been developed fairly late as a way to explain the phenomenon of "Robber Councils," but when considered in the light of the statements and behaviour of the early Councils, and the Chalcedonian Schism, is simply doesn't make sense.
From what I can see, the only option remaining is simply that what happens is what is supposed to happen, because it happened. But thst undermines the idea that doctrine is correct based on its actual truth and internal consistency, and leaves it entirely to the playing out of events in history. It also leaves open the possibility that there could be some Council in the future that changes doctrine in a way that people today would consider unconscionable, and would say go completely against Tradition. Such as female Priests, or adding new books to the canon of Scripture, or scrapping the Liturgy, or something else of a similarly extreme nature.
Now, some might say that as the Holy Spirit guides the Church, and Christ promised that the gates of hell would not overcome it, that will not happen. OK, but that still doesn't explain what defines an Ecumenical Council, what makes it an Ecumenical Council, it can only define them as being such from a position of hindsight by the fact of that being what was handed down.
And then I realised that the doctrine of the Holy Spirit guiding the Church and Christ saying that the gates of hell will not overcome it completely undermines the Church's claims about the central importance of free will. If people have free will, then everyone could apostasise and there be no-one left for the Holy Spirit to work through. If people have free will, every Orthodox Christian on earth could decide to follow a different confession, or a different religion, or no religion at all. The claim that there is this absolute certainty about the future of the Church cannot be reconciled with free will. And yet so many of the arguments that the Church Fathers made about doctrine were based on the supposed truth of free will. The entire basis of the Church's doctrine on sin and repentance, on asceticism, on holiness and Sainthood, and the repudiation of things like astrology, rely on free will.
This stuff is all just so much more messy than I realised. I never had the chance to get into this stuff beforehand as I did not receive catechesis, and my Priest was very keen to baptise me. I was Baptised after four months of attending Liturgy, and that was because I made my Priest wait for an extra month, or it would have been three months.
It's really difficult because on the one hand, I'm glad I didn't wait and have more thorough teaching cos if I did I might not have been Baptised, and I really do love the Church, but on the other hand I'm struggling with the thought that to continue I will have to switch my brain off and force myself to accept things that just don't make sense. I have no problem with miracles and the Resurrection, things like that, I don't mean that, what I mean is the internal consistency on what the Church claims about the Church. This issue of what exactly makes an Ecumenical Council and Ecumenical Council doesn't seem to have an answer. Every potential answer seems to have a flaw in it. Can anyone explain this in a way that makes sense and is consistent?
Thank you.
