Posted                      

quote:

---

Originally posted by Zach82:
The article says it's to be held at Hagia Irene.

I hope they settle on celebrating Easter with the West, though perhaps that's an outside chance.

Otherwise, don't really have a pony in this race.

---

Yeah. My idiocy strikes again. You expect me to actually read carefully what I post on? Posh posh! thanks for pointing that out.

It's very possible that this will in fact turn out to be just a pan-Orthodox council (ie, not on the same level as the 7-8 Orthodox ecumenical Councils of yore). Or that they try to pull a Vatican II by saying they won't be issuing any infallible canons or anathemas and will only draft pastoral statements and settle non-theological, non-personal-morality disputes.

I do have a third reason for being wary of the consequences of such a council, and that is that it might seriously damage the chances of a reunion of East and West like Vatican I did.

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by ken:
The notion of the churches holding a council in Hagia Sophia in the current state of affairs in Turkey is a bit far-fetched. About as likely as the Republican Party National Convention being moved to Tianamen Square.

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by stonespring:
However, I as a non-Orthodox have two worries.
1. It will be irresistible to anathematize the liberal views on Dead Horses for all time. These are pretty conservative bishops.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by mouse thief:
2. Russia dominates the Eastern Orthdox communion in its Church's size and power. Even if decisions are made by consensus, Russia will have a huge influence on any decision, and the ROC's cozy relationship with the Russian government worries me.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by stonespring:
Councils are declared ecumenical in retrospect.

---

Posted                      

quote:

---

Originally posted by IngoB:

Also apparently the Antiochian and Czech & Slowak Orthodox Churches did not attend this preparatory meeting, in the usual demonstration of Orthodox unity. Now, what happens if they also do not attend the potential Ecumenical Council? For RCs, the situation is clear: if you don't follow the call of the pope to council, then that is your problem. The Ecumenicalness ultimately flows from Rome's approval, not from universal attendance. But what would be required now? Full representative attendance of all autocephalous churches in the Orthodox communion?

---

IngoB, I'm pretty sure the Orthodox know that no Ecumenical Council and not even the Council of Nicaea was attended by every bishop in Christendom or even by every non-heretic bishop in Christendom. The way that an ecumenical council becomes recognized after the fact as ecumenical (and therefore infallible) for all time is pretty complicated but Orthodoxy in general is so I don't think they think that that is a bad thing. An ecumenical council in the past for Orthodox leaders is like pornography was for whatever US Judge said this "They know it when they see it." (no comparison intended between Church councils and pornography! Although that would be the best gay porn film ever (the priest porn that is actually made is SO lame)...God forgive me )

Posted                      

quote:

---

Originally posted by The Man with a Stick:
Pedant hat on.

Can this be an Ecumenical Council, it not having been called by an Emperor? Is it not, actually, a Pan-Orthodox Synod?

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gamaliel:
As far as I understand it, an Emperor doesn't have to call an Ecumenical Council.

---

Being a good Anglican, I note our official position on such matters is set out in Article XXI.

I just used the 39 Articles in support of a point. I feel dirty now...

Posted                      

quote:

---

Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
What about Simeon II of Bulgaria?

---

Posted                      

quote:

---

Originally posted by The Man with a Stick:
Pedant hat on.

Can this be an Ecumenical Council, it not having been called by an Emperor? Is it not, actually, a Pan-Orthodox Synod?

---

Posted                          

quote:

---

Originally posted by IngoB:
Since Rome didn't give a damn about Orthodox opinion in declaring 21 Ecumenical Councils so far, most of which after the Great Schism, I don't see why the Orthodox schismatics should be particularly bothered about the opinion of Rome in this matter.

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by leo:
I thought it was Rome that was schismatic - when it introduced an extra word in the Creed.

---

Posted                      

quote:

---

Originally posted by stonespring:
To what extent does the Pope and RCC have anything to do with the oikoumene for the Orthodox? Did the Syriac, Coptic, and Armenian bishops have to come to the later of the 7 ecumenical councils in order for them to be ecumenical? Rome may have been one of the historical five Patriarchates and first in honor among them to the Orthodox, but to what extent is the Pope still the Patriarch of Rome to the global Orthodox Church. The Ecumenical Patriarch may recognize the Pope as the Patriarch of Rome and thereby, I assume, recognize Roman bishops as valid but how true is this in other parts of Orthodoxy? In Russia? On Mount Athos?

Couldn't there be an argument that since Rome fell into schism and heresy from Orthodoxy and since Rome has not since been under the jurisdiction of an Orthodox emperor who could have restored an Orthodox patriarchy there, that the Patriachate of Rome is vacant and now after so much time cannot be restored? Some Orthodox are against the use of the Roman Canon by the Western Rite or any liturgy that lost its links with Orthodoxy long ago through schism. (The Liturgy of St Basil is different because it want schism that stopped its use for a long time) Can't you make a similar argument about the Patriarchate of Rome and all Bishops under it?

Even if the Orthodox on the whole recognize the Pope as the Patriarch of Rome and his bishops as valid (do they?), since they have been in schism and heresy for about 1000 years why should they be needed for an ecumenical council?

In an unrelated question, is it possible for Orthodoxy to re-establish jurisdictions in Italy comprising a Patriarchate of Rome? You wound up with Melkite (as in Orthodox) and Coptic Patriarchs in Alexandria and Melkite (as in Orthodox) and Syriac Patriarchs in Antioch after those schisms (I know Melkite means something Eastern Catholic now) - why can't this happen in Rome with the explanation that barbarians in political power prevented it from happening earlier?

As for the Council of Florence, the orthodox are pretty united in anathematizing those who agreed to union with Rome there, so I'm not sure if that council implies that the Orthodox Church (and not just the heretics or opportunists who went to that council) even recognize the Pope and RCC as successors of their place in the early Ecumenical Councils.

---

Posted                      

quote:

---

Originally posted by CL:

quote:

---

Originally posted by stonespring:
To what extent does the Pope and RCC have anything to do with the oikoumene for the Orthodox? Did the Syriac, Coptic, and Armenian bishops have to come to the later of the 7 ecumenical councils in order for them to be ecumenical? Rome may have been one of the historical five Patriarchates and first in honor among them to the Orthodox, but to what extent is the Pope still the Patriarch of Rome to the global Orthodox Church. The Ecumenical Patriarch may recognize the Pope as the Patriarch of Rome and thereby, I assume, recognize Roman bishops as valid but how true is this in other parts of Orthodoxy? In Russia? On Mount Athos?

Couldn't there be an argument that since Rome fell into schism and heresy from Orthodoxy and since Rome has not since been under the jurisdiction of an Orthodox emperor who could have restored an Orthodox patriarchy there, that the Patriachate of Rome is vacant and now after so much time cannot be restored? Some Orthodox are against the use of the Roman Canon by the Western Rite or any liturgy that lost its links with Orthodoxy long ago through schism. (The Liturgy of St Basil is different because it want schism that stopped its use for a long time) Can't you make a similar argument about the Patriarchate of Rome and all Bishops under it?

Even if the Orthodox on the whole recognize the Pope as the Patriarch of Rome and his bishops as valid (do they?), since they have been in schism and heresy for about 1000 years why should they be needed for an ecumenical council?

In an unrelated question, is it possible for Orthodoxy to re-establish jurisdictions in Italy comprising a Patriarchate of Rome? You wound up with Melkite (as in Orthodox) and Coptic Patriarchs in Alexandria and Melkite (as in Orthodox) and Syriac Patriarchs in Antioch after those schisms (I know Melkite means something Eastern Catholic now) - why can't this happen in Rome with the explanation that barbarians in political power prevented it from happening earlier?

As for the Council of Florence, the orthodox are pretty united in anathematizing those who agreed to union with Rome there, so I'm not sure if that council implies that the Orthodox Church (and not just the heretics or opportunists who went to that council) even recognize the Pope and RCC as successors of their place in the early Ecumenical Councils.

---

Orthodoxy has never formally declared the Roman Communion to have fallen into heresy; schism yes, heresy no. Neither did we do the same to them. And the schism itself tended to be manifest only at the top level up, and even then inconsistently, until the 18th century. It took over two centuries for the Russian Church to follow the Greeks and break communion with the Latins; Orthodox and Catholic alike shared the altar at Hagia Sophia on the eve of Constantinople's fall; even today the Melkites and Antiochians are in practice essentially one Church with two hierarchies.

---

Posted                      

quote:

---

Originally posted by Augustine the Aleut:
Stonespring asks 427 questions and, although I'm not among the Orthodox, I'll hazard a guess at one or two of them.

It would seem to me that, while there might be a rationale to electing/imposing Orthodox hierarchs on (say) Italian sees, the Orthodox approach seems to be that the Italian churches have fallen out of communion temporarily and can easily fall back in with a bit of doctrinal clarity. There are Orthodox bishops in (I think) Milan and Venice to supervise diasporic congregations but, as I noted, they seem to regard this as a temporary pastoral measure. Greetings from Ecumenical Patriarch Bartholomew to Cardinal Martini, late Abp of Milan, referred to him as the successor of S Ambrose so it would appear that there is a recognition of continuity. Ecumenical Patriarch Athenagoras notably greeted Paul VI as the successor of S Peter and IIRC at least two Patriarchs of Antioch made similar references (as Antioch was the other see founded by S Peter).

While there are occasionally fulminations against all-things-western among a few Greek writers (and some convert North American Orthodox), western liturgical rites have been used as Orthodox in recent times. The western rite churches in France and the Antiochian vicariate have authorized versions of the Gregorian missal in use. As well, there is an Orthodoxified version of the ECUSA BCP, known as the rite of S Tikhon.

But Stonespring raises a very interesting question about the Oriental Orthodox, given that there have been at least two agreed statements on the issues raised at Chalcedon. I haven't seen any discussion on this. Yet.

---

Posted                          

quote:

---

1. Changes to fasting regulations
2. Impediments to marriage
3. The calendar
4. What to do about overlapping jurisdictions in the diaspora
5. Relations with other Christian churches such as Roman Catholics, Old Catholics, Oriental Orthodox, and Anglicans
6. When and how a church receives autonomy
7. Participation in the World Council of Churches
8. Witness to the world on ethical and moral concerns

---

Posted                         

quote:

---

Originally posted by mousethief:
I seem to remember that the ban of excommunication slapped on the altar in the Church of the Holy Wisdom by Cardinal Humbert specifically mentioned that the Greeks were heretical for using leavened bread. So it's not as if this is something that only the Orthodox cared about. As far as I know, Humbert wasn't Orthodox. Indeed far from it.

---

quote:

---

Furthermore, when we, the Pope's ambassadors, wanted to eliminate the causes of such great evils in a reasonable way, he denied us his presence and conversation, forbid churches to celebrate Mass, just as he had earlier closed the churches of the Latins and, calling them "azymites," had persecuted the Latins everywhere in word and deed. Indeed, so much [did he persecute them] that among his own children, he had anathematized the apostolic see and against it he still writes that he is the ecumenical patriarch.

---

Posted                          

quote:

---

Originally posted by Sober Preacher's Kid:
It makes Presbyterianism look positively enlightened and civil....

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by Sober Preacher's Kid:
It makes Presbyterianism look positively enlightened and civil....

---

But also quite boring

--------------------
"For those who like that sort of thing, that is the sort of thing they like"

Posted                         

quote:

---

Originally posted by The Silent Acolyte:
And, while we're at it: let's just say Orthodox, not eastern .

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mockingbird:
5. Relations with other Christian churches such as Roman Catholics, Old Catholics, Oriental Orthodox, and Anglicans

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mockingbird:
3. The calendar

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by Zach82:


I hope they settle on celebrating Easter with the West, though perhaps that's an outside chance.

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by PaulTH*:
This is something the Orthodox Church has dealt with very poorly in the past, and it can be hoped that this might change. Relations with the Oriental Orthodox should be a priority IMO. It's my understanding that a Miaphysite believes that Christ has one nature, both human and divine, the analogy being water and wine mixed in a glass. The post Chalcedonians believe He has two natures, one human and one divine, the analogy being water and oil mixed in a glass. I wouldn't have a clue which of these is more accurate, as I can't see into the mind of God, but I'm sure a formula of words which harmonises what is really a matter of semantics could be found. There isn't a whisker of difference between the practices of Oriental and Eastern Orthodox Christianity, the Orientals need the support of the whole of christendon in their struggle to survive, and their devotion, example and witness should be an inspiration to all of us. But by all means, lets hope that Orthodox Christianity enagages with ecumenism and the hope of ending millennia of schism.

---

Posted                      

quote:

---

Originally posted by PaulTH*:
IMO, the Orthodox should respond by changing its calendar to conform to the majority of the world. I accept that the Julian Calendar is older, but the point is that the world uses another calendar, and it's time to move on.

---

quote:

---

most of the Mt Athos community would see hell freeze over before they'd concede anything.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mudfrog:
I wish the West would settle Easter with the Jews and restore the commemoration and celebration of the passion and resurrection at its rightful place at Passover.

---

Posted                      

quote:

---

Originally posted by SeraphimSarov:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Sober Preacher's Kid:
It makes Presbyterianism look positively enlightened and civil....

---

But also quite boring

---

Posted                          

quote:

---

Originally posted by mousethief:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mudfrog:
I wish the West would settle Easter with the Jews and restore the commemoration and celebration of the passion and resurrection at its rightful place at Passover.

---

When was it ever celebrated thus? Is that in the Didache?

---

Posted                          

quote:

---

Originally posted by mousethief:
I'm all for moving the equinox back to the equinox,

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by mousethief:
but even then there is a difference in the calculation methods, so that there is discrepancy between the two methods, even before the calendars grew so far apart. As witness King Oswiu and the Council of Whitby.

---

Posted                      

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mockingbird:

quote:

---

Originally posted by mousethief:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mudfrog:
I wish the West would settle Easter with the Jews and restore the commemoration and celebration of the passion and resurrection at its rightful place at Passover.

---

When was it ever celebrated thus? Is that in the Didache?

---

It's in the Didascalia Apostolorum that Easter should fall within the Jewish days of Unleavened Bread. This practice lasted longest in Syria, and was the one deprecated at Nicea. Henceforward Christians were to calculate their own "month of 'Abib", which the LXX translated as "month of new [grain]," with its own Week of Unleavened Bread and set Easter to the Sunday falling within that week. The point was to do independent computations, so accidental coincidence of the Jewish and Christian 'Abib or Week of Unleavened Bread was not considered a problem.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mockingbird:

quote:

---

Originally posted by mousethief:
I'm all for moving the equinox back to the equinox,

---

What about moving the "full moon" back to the full moon?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mockingbird:
If your side would simply delete 13 solar days and 4 lunar days, the two systems would agree far more often than now.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Enoch:
Does the Orthodox calendar calculate Easter on the same day as the one we used until 1752? That one was then 11 days out with the one we use now, but would now be 13 days out because 1800 and 1900 would have been leap years under the old one, but not under the new one. Or does it also calculate Easter a different way?

---

Posted                          

quote:

---

Originally posted by mousethief:
]Okay, so the Didascalia dates to 230 and Nicea was in 325. So for a glorious 95 years, we were getting it right? This doesn't strike me as a prime example of Vincent of Lerins' "always, everywhere, and by all."

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by mousethief:
According to the page linked below, the Jews changed the way they determined Passover sometime in late antiquity or the early middle ages. If that is true (and I haven't researched it myself so I am not defending or denying the possibility) then it is worthwhile to ask, why should we change it they way they have, rather than try to approximate what it was at the time of the actual Resurrection of Christ?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by mousethief:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Enoch:
Does the Orthodox calendar calculate Easter on the same day as the one we used until 1752? That one was then 11 days out with the one we use now, but would now be 13 days out because 1800 and 1900 would have been leap years under the old one, but not under the new one. Or does it also calculate Easter a different way?

---

This page sets out the history in what feels to me like a fairly even-handed manner. I don't know the exact details, or what, for example, the precise difference was between the "Celtic" and "Roman" methods that were debated at the Council of Whitby. I'd prefer everybody throw away the absurd calendar cycles and just base the date on raw astronomical data. But they never ask me.

---

If Mousethief were in charge, the Eastern Orthodox churches would be happier places.

The short answer to Enoch's question is: Yes. If England had not gone on the Gregorian calendar, the Church of England might well now be celebrating Easter with the Eastern churches, on the first Sunday after the 4-day waning gibbous moon after the 13th day after the Spring equinox.

The GOARCH article seems to presuppose that the West has always used an 84-year cycle. In fact an 84-year cycle has not been used anywhere in the West for over a thousand years. At the time of Nicea, according to our best information, Rome used an 84-year cycle (the Roman-84) while Alexandria used a 19-year cycle. Rome switched to a 19-year cycle (the Victorian) in the 5th century. Around the same time, the British Isles developed their own unique variant of the 84-year cycle (the Celtic-84). In the 6th century, Rome changed again to the Alexandrian 19-year cycle, but outside of Rome the Victorian and Celtic-84 continued in use in some places. By around the 10th century, though, all Christendom was using the Alexandrian 19-year cycle.

As a consequence of its notion that the West still uses an 84-year cycle, the GOARCH article fails to note that the Gregorian paschalion is a 19-year cycle, constructed largely on the same principles as the Julian paschalion but with a more up-to-date equinox and a more up-to-date age of the moon.

[ 16. March 2014, 18:07: Message edited by: Mockingbird ]

--------------------
Forþon we sealon efestan þas Easterlican þing to asmeagenne and to gehealdanne, þaet we magon cuman to þam Easterlican daege, þe aa byð, mid fullum glaedscipe and wynsumnysse and ecere blisse.

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by Augustine the Aleut:

quote:

---

Originally posted by SeraphimSarov:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Sober Preacher's Kid:
It makes Presbyterianism look positively enlightened and civil....

---

But also quite boring

---

Perhaps now, but 150 years ago they were far from it. The splits in Canada between the Kirk (which wasn't a national church here), Free Kirk, the Wee Frees etc etc, were pretty dramatic. Aficionadi of church archives and genealogy will still happily hold forth on the nightmares this causes them (usually sipping on the second-division local craft beers). I refer people to Richard Sage Sutherland's Scenes of Highland Clerical Life for details of catechetical fisticuffs.

---

Posted                      

quote:

---

Originally posted by stonespring:
So it seems even Reuters (my link in the OP) got it wrong....or were the Orthodox themselves not sure for a while whether the new council is intended to be an Ecumenical Council or not?

---

quote:

---

I thought that the Orthodox world was finally ready to lock themselves in a room and not leave until they had come to final and forever-binding decisions on who has jurisdiction where.

---

quote:

---

It's laughable that I could have thought this, considering recent Orthodox history.

---

quote:

---

It's still sad, though.

---

Posted                      

quote:

---

Originally posted by IngoB:
By whom and how? Ok, the answer is "By the pope solemnly promulgating its declarations." But I somehow doubt that the Orthodox will send to Rome. So what then, actually?

Also apparently the Antiochian and Czech & Slowak Orthodox Churches did not attend this preparatory meeting, in the usual demonstration of Orthodox unity. Now, what happens if they also do not attend the potential Ecumenical Council? For RCs, the situation is clear: if you don't follow the call of the pope to council, then that is your problem. The Ecumenicalness ultimately flows from Rome's approval, not from universal attendance. But what would be required now? Full representative attendance of all autocephalous churches in the Orthodox communion?

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ad Orientem:
This is typical Roman historical revisionism in the light of Vatican I. Perhaps I should mention here the Council of Constantinople: essentially a council of local Eastern bishops.

---