Originally posted by Sober Preacher's Kid:
It makes Presbyterianism look positively enlightened and civil....
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
quote:Yeah. My idiocy strikes again. You expect me to actually read carefully what I post on? Posh posh!
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.
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
thanks for pointing that out.quote:Haiga Irene, not Haiga Sophia. Different church. According to wiki it was used as an armoury after the Conquest and never converted into a mosque, so that should make it acceptable in Muslim eyes.
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.
quote:Your worries, my hope. It's unlikely, though. Economy drives economia...
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:This gets it the wrong way around entirely. It is the Russians who insisted on "full consensus only", effectively granting them a veto on any decision. Just imagine that the council would try to grant the EcuPat some actual governing authority over the Russian church. Oh noes. Or if they condemned the Russian state aggression in the Ukraine. Oh noes. But not to worry, without Russian consensus nothing can happen now.
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: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?
Originally posted by stonespring:
Councils are declared ecumenical in retrospect.
quote: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
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?
)
quote:There are two anointed Orthodox sovereigns still breathing (Constantine of Greece and Michael of Romania) but given that neither are spring chickens any summonsing will have to happen fairly soon. Unless, of course, Charles will swim the Bosphorus after his accession....
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?
quote:Being a good Anglican, I note our official position on such matters is set out in Article XXI.
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
As far as I understand it, an Emperor doesn't have to call an Ecumenical Council.
![[Two face]](graemlins/scot_twoface.gif)
quote:Not anointed, so in the minds of a few theologians (whose lives must be enriched by writing about this), he doesn't count. In practical terms, I think he would have the same relevance as the other two. Every account I've heard of the ecumenical councils requires that they be convoked by the emperor or nearest equivalent. There are apparently some Russian canonists who feel that President Putin is the closest that can be had, but I don't know if they are eccentrics, sycophants, or trial-balloon raisers.
Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
What about Simeon II of Bulgaria?
quote:How has Orthodoxy reconciled Caesaropapism with long periods of rule by Muslims (or Latins and Communist atheists), republicanism, the split of the Byzantine Empire into multiple (even if Orthodox) countries and Autocephalous Churches, etc? If they can wrap their theology around those issues in all kinds of other areas, why can't they do it for an ecumenical council? There is no Byzantine emperor and there probably never will be one ever again. I don't think that would prevent an Ecumenical council, but I'm not Orthodox!
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?
quote:I thought it was Rome that was schismatic - when it introduced an extra word in the Creed.
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.
quote:The root cause of the Great Schism was the aggressive political power play of the formerly unimportant diocese of Heraclea, which used the Emperor of the East to catapult itself into a Patriarchate from zero historical basis, then proceeded to vassalise the other Eastern Patriarchs and finally realised its dream of the primacy of "New Rome" at all costs. If you are talking about the "filioque": while the pre-schism of Photius of 867-9 mentioned this among other things (in order to get rid of the lawful bishop who had refused communion to the regent Bardas over his open incest...), Caerularius in 1053-4 actually did not include that item in his accusations of heresy against Rome. But he invented a new one, the use of unleavened bread (azymes, or if you wish, matzah). So there you go, the "filioque" was not part of the trumped up charges of the Great Schism, if you date that to 1054. But don't worry, since you are likely an unrepentant Azymite that Great Schism has been declared officially against your ongoing heresy concerning the sacramental matter. Shame on us Judaizing Azymites in the West and our matzah hosts. Shame.
Originally posted by leo:
I thought it was Rome that was schismatic - when it introduced an extra word in the Creed.
quote: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.
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.
quote:I'm pretty sure most Orthodox bishops would call the Filioque, Papal Infallibility, and the Immaculate Conception of Mary heresy.
Originally posted by CL:
quote: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.
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.
quote:The Ecumenical Patriarchs have been among the most pro-reconciliation with Rome Orthodox bishops for decades. The Russian Orthodox Church (by which I mean in Russia, not the Russian diaspora), much less so. And Mount Athos won't stop going on about the Pan-Heresy of ecumenism. I'm not sure there isn't a sizable number of Orthdox bishops who don't think the RCC has any place in an Ecumenical Council of the Universal Church. There may very well be Roman non-voting observers, probably at Constantinople's insistence. But the very fact that they're having this ecumenical council without Rome's voting participation must mean that they don't think it is necessary.
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.
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
quote:Not quite. There was no objection from the Latin Church to the use of leavened bread in the east. Indeed, the Latin approach was that both were equally valid. The Council of Florence re-iterated this position.
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:The issue in contention was that Michael Cærularius forbade the latin rite and its use of unleavened bread, not that the eastern rite used leavened bread.
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.
quote:Yes, the Presbyterians are enlightened and civil. They rarely make the headlines, though. At least, not around here they don't ...
Originally posted by Sober Preacher's Kid:
It makes Presbyterianism look positively enlightened and civil....
quote:But also quite boring
Originally posted by Sober Preacher's Kid:
It makes Presbyterianism look positively enlightened and civil....
![[Yipee]](graemlins/spin.gif)
quote:I use the term Eastern Orthodox, not out of any disrespect, but to distinguish from the Monophysite, or more accuartely Miaphysite Oriental Orthodox Churches. These churches, which have been out in the cold from the rest of christendom since the Council of Chalcedon, are amongst the world's most persecuted Christians, and their pedigree is truly ancient. St Mark is traditionally the founder of the Coptic Orthodox Church.
Originally posted by The Silent Acolyte:
And, while we're at it: let's just say Orthodox, not eastern .
quote: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.
Originally posted by Mockingbird:
5. Relations with other Christian churches such as Roman Catholics, Old Catholics, Oriental Orthodox, and Anglicans
quote:I've long believed, as an ecumenist who believes Christians should be ONE, that the West should drop the filioque from the creed. Again, I don't claim to understand the mind of God well enough to know if it should be there or not, and I've seen theological arguements both ways. But it's certainly an unhistorical addition inserted without the consideration or even respect of the Eastern Patriarchs. The declaration Dominus Iesus contains the creed sans filioque, and the present Archbishop of Canterbury Justin Welby was installed without it. This proves that both the Catholic and Anglican Churches can live without it, wheras the Orthodox Church can't live with it, as it's the defining statement of the Great Schism.This would be a grand ecumenical gesture by the West. 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.
Originally posted by Mockingbird:
3. The calendar
quote: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.
Originally posted by Zach82:
I hope they settle on celebrating Easter with the West, though perhaps that's an outside chance.
quote:There was a dialogue between the Oriental and Eastern Orthodox fairly recently, in the last 15 years I think. It came to pretty much exactly the same conclusion that you have here: that the division over the Chalcedonian formula was not a substantial difference in theology, but a difference in semantics.
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.
quote:Sadly, "time to move on" is not in the Orthodox lexicon. I'm all for moving the equinox back to the equinox, 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.
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:There's the rub. They were chiefly responsible, it is said, for putting the kybosh on the talks we had of late with the Oriental Orthodox. Speaking of which, keep saying "Eastern Orthodox" to distinctify us from the Oriental Orthodoxen all you want -- cavilling against that is as silly and absurd as Caffix who get their knickers knotted over "Roman" Catholic.
most of the Mt Athos community would see hell freeze over before they'd concede anything.
quote:When was it ever celebrated thus? Is that in the Didache?
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.
quote: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.
Originally posted by SeraphimSarov:
quote:But also quite boring
Originally posted by Sober Preacher's Kid:
It makes Presbyterianism look positively enlightened and civil....
quote: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.
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:When was it ever celebrated thus? Is that in the Didache?
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.
quote:What about moving the "full moon" back to the full moon?
Originally posted by mousethief:
I'm all for moving the equinox back to the equinox,
quote:The Gregorian and Julian paschalions are very similar in construction. The main difference is that the Gregorian is more accurate. If your side would simply delete 13 solar days and 4 lunar days, the two systems would agree far more often than now.
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.
quote: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."
Originally posted by Mockingbird:
quote: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.
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:When was it ever celebrated thus? Is that in the Didache?
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.
quote:That works for me too. Things that were explicitly pegged to actual astronomical events should use those astronomical events, and not a proxy that is subject to getting dragged away from the astronomical event for irrelevant reasons.
Originally posted by Mockingbird:
quote:What about moving the "full moon" back to the full moon?
Originally posted by mousethief:
I'm all for moving the equinox back to the equinox,
quote:Struth.
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: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.
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?
quote:I think it possible that holding Easter on the Sunday of Unleavened Bread was the original practice. Sunday was a Christian festival from very early. Exactly one Sunday a year falls within the seven Scriptural days of Unleavened Bread, and this day, by minority interpretation of Leviticus 23.11, was the day of waving the barley sheaf. It would be surprising if at least a few Christians hadn't held this one Sunday a year in special esteem.
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:The GOARCH article is mostly sound, though it has errors. On this point it is mostly right, though it doesn't tell the whole story. In the days of the Temple, the priests controlled the calendar, and Jewish communities who were in contact with Jerusalem were able to set their calendars accordingly. In those days, according to Josephus, Passover and Matzoth were held "when the sun in in Aries", which can reasonably taken to mean after the Spring equinox. After the Temple fell, Jewish communities had to set their calendars themselves, and in some places their calendar sometimes placed Passover and Matzoth before the Spring equinox. The move to independent computations was a reaction to this state of affairs. However, in later centuries the Rabbis developed a calendar that restored Matzoth to the Spring season, and this Rabbinic calendar is the one now in use by all who follow the Rabbinic teaching, but not by Karaites or Samaritans. The GOARCH article mentions the first of these transitions, from a centralized calendar controlled by the Jerusalem priests to a decentralized calendar set by each town for itself, but not the second, from the decentralized calendar to a unified, computed calendar. Also the article seems to presuppose that the Jewish calendar remained unified throughout the period in which it was not unified.
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:If Mousethief were in charge, the Eastern Orthodox churches would be happier places.
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote: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.
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?
![[Biased]](wink.gif)
quote:Actually, the Church of Scotland had "establishment" rights in the British North American provinces. The Church of England was legally established in Nova Scotia and New Brunswick, but the Church of Scotland got equal property and marriage rights. In Upper and Lower Canada (Ontario & Quebec) there was no "established" church and the Church of England, Church of Scotland and Roman Catholic Church had and have equal property and marriage rights.
Originally posted by Augustine the Aleut:
quote: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.
Originally posted by SeraphimSarov:
quote:But also quite boring
Originally posted by Sober Preacher's Kid:
It makes Presbyterianism look positively enlightened and civil....
quote:I feel like there is an impasse in communication here. You don't "intend" for a council to be ecumenical. That is decided in retrospect. If you ask again, I will say the same thing. I believe others have said the same thing right on this very thread. I believe a perusal of history will show this to be true. I need only mention the Council of Florence.
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.
![[Killing me]](graemlins/killingme.gif)
quote:Ah, so you recognize the absurdity of this.
It's laughable that I could have thought this, considering recent Orthodox history.
quote:Very. Downright pathetic. Human egos, years of growing apart, majoring in the minors, and the lustre of filthy lucre all play a part. Hopefully it will get sorted before the Parousia. But I'm going to continue respirating.
It's still sad, though.
quote: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.
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?
quote:It is not "historical revisionism" to state what has crystallised out as the proper procedure over time, just because the beginnings were less clearly organised. But anyway, which Council of Constantinople are you talking about, and why should it be an issue for the Roman view if an Ecumenical Council was held mainly by Eastern bishops? It is my very point that in RC understanding a Council becomes Ecumenical not by worldwide attendance, but by the recognition of the pope as applying to the Church throughout the whole world. The 1st Council of Constantinople in 381, for example, was summoned by Emperor Theodosius acting on the advice of Pope Damasus I, who also sent his legates to the proceedings. Due to its contentious Canon 3 establishing the Patriarchate of Constantinople, it was only recognised implicitly by Pope Vigilius accepting the 2nd Council of Constantinople in 553 by letter to the Patriarch Eutychius of Constantinople in the same year, and by the constitution "Dominus noster et Salvator" in 554.
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.
quote:The problem with this is that there haven’t been a single council which included every bishop, and no council have ever been received in every part of Christendom. If the arguments of some Orthodox (most of whom ‘live’ online) is valid, that the councils of the Roman Catholic Church after 787 aren’t valid because they didn’t include ‘the whole Church,’ then this council will neither be valid. Of course those arguments pretty much makes every single council ever held invalid.
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
As far as I understand it, an Emperor doesn't have to call an Ecumenical Council. Also, I've heard an Orthodox priest say that, strictly speaking, a Council can't be fully Ecumenical in the true sense unless old Rome is involved and until the recommendations/decisions are taken on board and ratified by the faithful within all the participating autocephalous churches.
quote:No, but according to some Orthodox, the councils convened by the Roman Catholic Church (such as the Lateran councils, the Vatican councils, etc.) aren’t ecumenical because ‘the whole Church’ wasn’t there. But again, that means that no council was ever ecumenical. The Orthodox also reject the Council of Florence, because it wasn’t received by the Orthodox faithful, a criterion which seems to have been conjured out of thin air, since it wasn’t applied to, say, the councils of Ephesus or Chalcedon.
Originally posted by stonespring:
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?
quote:But that would involve arguing that the Church of Rome is wrong, not merely that it lacks jurisdiction. But that opens up the possibility to see if perhaps the Orthodox churches are the ‘heretics.’ Then it becomes not a question of jurisdiction, but of theology. And that would effectively make null and void many of the arguments from the Orthodox on topics such as the Filioque. Many Orthodox have said that the Filioque is theologically correct, but that the Roman Catholics didn’t have the rights to change the text of the Nicene Creed. Of course no one saw any faults when they altered the section on the Holy Spirit in Constantinople I in 381. But I guess that was because it was convened by ‘the whole Church’ (except that it wasn’t).
Originally posted by stonespring:
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?
quote:The Roman Canon predates the Divine Liturgies of both Ss. John Chrysostom and Basil the Great.
Originally posted by stonespring:
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.
quote:To not completely undermine the arguments made agains the Roman Catholic Church throughout the centuries.
Originally posted by stonespring:
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?
quote:Yes, like when they added “the Lord, and Giver of Life, Who proceedeth from the Father, Who with the Father and the Son together is worshipped and glorified, Who spoke by the Prophets” in the Nicene Creed?
Originally posted by leo:
quote:I thought it was Rome that was schismatic - when it introduced an extra word in the Creed.
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.
quote:And what constitutes ‘the whole Church’? Where is the ‘cut off point’? Why is Chalcedon (which was rejected by entire churches) ecumenical, while say, Lateran II is not?
Originally posted by Ad Orientem:
A council is considered ecumenical in retrospect by its fruits and by having been received by the whole Church.
quote:So if the Roman Church is still part of the One Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church, albeit in schism, but the Coptic, Ethiopian, Syriac, and Armenian Churches are not (which is what I think you just said), does the primacy of honor given to the Patriarch of Rome mean anything with regards to an ecumenical council? Can an ecumenical council be convened, meet, and be received by the faithful with no involvement whatsoever by the Patriarch of Rome? If the answer is yes, does this mean that if for whatever reason the Ecumenical Patriarchate of Constantinople one day fell into schism, that an ecumenical council could convene and be received by the faithful with no involvement from the Ecumenical Patriarch whatsoever?
Originally posted by Ad Orientem:
Those that the councils condemned were no longer part of the Church. Therefore the councils no longer needed to be received by them in order to be ecumenical.
And to address a couple more of your points, i've never heard an Orthodox argue that the Filioque was anything but heresy, neither have I ever heard an Orthodox argue that the whole Church must attend a council. As far as the Orthodox are concerned Rome belongs to the Church otherwise they wouldn't be in schism, would they.
quote:From an Orthodox persective any heirachy among the bishops is ultimately only a matter of convenience making it easier to govern the Church. If any honour is given to one bishop above another it's not because it's essential to the continuing existence of the Church. The Church doesn't necessarily need the patriarchies in order to exist. All it needs is at least one orthodox bishop around whom the faith can congregate, but that could be the bishop of anywhere.
Originally posted by stonespring:
Can an ecumenical council be convened, meet, and be received by the faithful with no involvement whatsoever by the Patriarch of Rome? If the answer is yes, does this mean that if for whatever reason the Ecumenical Patriarchate of Constantinople one day fell into schism, that an ecumenical council could convene and be received by the faithful with no involvement from the Ecumenical Patriarch whatsoever?
quote:That was not my point. The oriental orthodox were part of the Church before the Council of Chalcedon, but they refused to acknowledge it. Why was that council then ecumenical, since the definition offered says that a council is ecumenical if it is received by ‘the whole Church’?
Originally posted by Ad Orientem:
Those that the councils condemned were no longer part of the Church.
quote:Huh? If the rule is that ‘the whole Church’ must acknowledge a council for it to be ecumenical, and thus binding on all Christians, then one cannot just brush disagreement away with an ecclesial version of ‘no true Scotsman.’ Then the rule would be meaningless.
Originally posted by Ad Orientem:
Well, if they refused to acknowledge them then they fell under its anathemas and they ceased to be part of the Church, thus it didn’t need their acknowledgement.
quote:What makes it ecumenical is the authority of the ones who convened them, or held them. Chalcedon was not received by the whole Church, yet it is still ecumenical.
Originally posted by Ad Orientem:
Then pray, what would you say makes a council "ecumenical"? A council could hardly be ecumenical if it wasn't received by the whole Church, or are you just squeemish about considering some outside?
quote:*LIKE*
Originally posted by Gildas:
If the Copts refuse to accept Chalcedon they are anathema. If the Orthodox refuse to accept Florence then so much the worse for the Council.
How can anyone demur from such a simple principle? Is outrage!
quote:So, the non-Chalcedonian Churches never went into schism, is that what you're saying? Neither did the Arians, or the Monosphysites, or the Iconoclasts? That's the essence of what you're saying. Do you even know what "ecumenical" means?
Originally posted by k-mann:
quote:What makes it ecumenical is the authority of the ones who convened them, or held them. Chalcedon was not received by the whole Church, yet it is still ecumenical.
Originally posted by Ad Orientem:
Then pray, what would you say makes a council "ecumenical"? A council could hardly be ecumenical if it wasn't received by the whole Church, or are you just squeemish about considering some outside?
quote:*LIKE*
Originally posted by Gildas:
If the Copts refuse to accept Chalcedon they are anathema. If the Orthodox refuse to accept Florence then so much the worse for the Council.
How can anyone demur from such a simple principle? Is outrage!
quote:If failure to accept the decisions of an ecumenical council makes one a schismatic, then the Orthodox are schismatics for refusing to accept Florence. If failure of the faithful to accept an ecumenical council means that the ecumencity of the council is void then Chalcedon is void. My orthodoxy may be suspect but I think my logic is ineluctable.
Originally posted by Ad Orientem:
quote:So, the non-Chalcedonian Churches never went into schism, is that what you're saying? Neither did the Arians, or the Monosphysites, or the Iconoclasts? That's the essence of what you're saying. Do you even know what "ecumenical" means?
Originally posted by k-mann:
quote:What makes it ecumenical is the authority of the ones who convened them, or held them. Chalcedon was not received by the whole Church, yet it is still ecumenical.
Originally posted by Ad Orientem:
Then pray, what would you say makes a council "ecumenical"? A council could hardly be ecumenical if it wasn't received by the whole Church, or are you just squeemish about considering some outside?
quote:*LIKE*
Originally posted by Gildas:
If the Copts refuse to accept Chalcedon they are anathema. If the Orthodox refuse to accept Florence then so much the worse for the Council.
How can anyone demur from such a simple principle? Is outrage!
quote:Your facts are suspect. Florence wasn't an ecumenical council.
Originally posted by Gildas:
If failure to accept the decisions of an ecumenical council makes one a schismatic, then the Orthodox are schismatics for refusing to accept Florence. If failure of the faithful to accept an ecumenical council means that the ecumencity of the council is void then Chalcedon is void. My orthodoxy may be suspect but I think my logic is ineluctable.
quote:No, that’s not what I’m saying. They did go into schism. I’m saying that the reception of the council is not necessary for it to be ecumenical. The fact that Chalcedon is ecumenical, yet wasn’t received by the whole Church, shows us that reception is not necessary.
Originally posted by Ad Orientem:
So, the non-Chalcedonian Churches never went into schism, is that what you're saying? Neither did the Arians, or the Monosphysites, or the Iconoclasts? That's the essence of what you're saying. Do you even know what "ecumenical" means?
quote:That doesn’t make any sense. Local councils are not binding on all. Ecumenical councils are. So if Chalcedon was originally local, but was declared ecumenical, then why would that have anything to do with the Orientals? Was the decision retroactive? Where in the council were they condemned?
Originally posted by Ad Orientem:
Then I'm afraid you don't know what ecumenical means. You can't just declare something ecumenical. Ecumenicalness is something that is recognised in retrospect (this is important, because the councils were never declared as "ecumenical", either beforehand or during but in retrospect), as has already been mentioned by myself and others. Those that fell under the anathemas fell into schism, thus their recognition was never need in order for the council to be "ecumenical". They no longer belonged to the Church. It's quite simple.
![[brick wall]](graemlins/brick_wall.gif)
quote:Why? That would only be the case if you adherde to some kind of sloppy ecclesiology, like branch theory for instance. And for a council to be considered ecumenical in retrospect is doesn't require the attendence of all the orthodox Churches. The second ecumenical council, for instance, was at the time was only a local council of Eastern bishops conveined at Constantinople.
Originally posted by Enoch:
Under modern conditions, any claim of any Council to be ecumenical rather than local will be spurious unless everyone who adheres to any sort of Trinitarian faith - and I mean everyone - is invited, from all five of the ancient Patriarchs to the President of the Methodist Conference, to whoever represents the Old Believers to Amos Starkadder of the Quivering Brethren.
quote:Not so, unless one's definition of 'sloppy' is no more than 'different from mine'.
Originally posted by Ad Orientem:
Why? That would only be the case if you adherde to some kind of sloppy ecclesiology, like branch theory for instance. And for a council to be considered ecumenical in retrospect is doesn't require the attendence of all the orthodox Churches. The second ecumenical council, for instance, was at the time was only a local council of Eastern bishops conveined at Constantinople.
quote:Then any arguments using the ancient councils are off the table.
Originally posted by Enoch:
Second, cut the arguments about the status of ancient Councils and who excommunicated who. We'll none of us get anywhere as long as we go on arguing that we were in the right and you weren't. That's so, whoever 'we' and 'you' happen to be.
quote:So let's pretend there are only three bishops in the world. They meet in a council and 2 decide to anathematize the other. After the council, those two bishops and their faithful agree that the council was ecumenical. Therefore the opinion of third bishop, who doesn't think the council was ecumenical, is irrelevant because he is no longer in the Church. Is that what you are saying?
Originally posted by Ad Orientem:
quote:Why? That would only be the case if you adherde to some kind of sloppy ecclesiology, like branch theory for instance. And for a council to be considered ecumenical in retrospect is doesn't require the attendence of all the orthodox Churches. The second ecumenical council, for instance, was at the time was only a local council of Eastern bishops conveined at Constantinople.
Originally posted by Enoch:
Under modern conditions, any claim of any Council to be ecumenical rather than local will be spurious unless everyone who adheres to any sort of Trinitarian faith - and I mean everyone - is invited, from all five of the ancient Patriarchs to the President of the Methodist Conference, to whoever represents the Old Believers to Amos Starkadder of the Quivering Brethren.
quote:We don't have some Thomist flowchart that splits these Jesuitical hairs. It's far more organic than that.
Originally posted by stonespring:
quote:So let's pretend there are only three bishops in the world. They meet in a council and 2 decide to anathematize the other. After the council, those two bishops and their faithful agree that the council was ecumenical. Therefore the opinion of third bishop, who doesn't think the council was ecumenical, is irrelevant because he is no longer in the Church. Is that what you are saying?
Originally posted by Ad Orientem:
quote:Why? That would only be the case if you adherde to some kind of sloppy ecclesiology, like branch theory for instance. And for a council to be considered ecumenical in retrospect is doesn't require the attendence of all the orthodox Churches. The second ecumenical council, for instance, was at the time was only a local council of Eastern bishops conveined at Constantinople.
Originally posted by Enoch:
Under modern conditions, any claim of any Council to be ecumenical rather than local will be spurious unless everyone who adheres to any sort of Trinitarian faith - and I mean everyone - is invited, from all five of the ancient Patriarchs to the President of the Methodist Conference, to whoever represents the Old Believers to Amos Starkadder of the Quivering Brethren.
What if there is a fourth bishop who didn't attend the council? After the council, if he and his flock don't think the council was ecumenical, does that matter since two of the three bishops still left in the church think it was ecumenical? Do all bishops in the church need to receive a council after the fact for it to be ecumenical, or just the majority? Does the opinion of non-bishops in the church matter as to what councils are ecumenical? How so?
quote:Well, yes, actually. That's exactly what the Church is. How can the Church be anything other than those who are "in communion with me"? Of course, we may differ as to what exactly "me" is, but to hold to any other definition of Church is, quite frankly, rubbish.
Originally posted by Enoch:
If one's definition of 'ecumenical' in this context is some variant of 'in communion with me', then a council of those churches that meet that description is 'ecumenical'. Likewise if one believes that the body of Christ is restricted to 'only those in communion with me'.
quote:The Church is generally taken to be the Body of Christ. If you are saying the Church is "those who are in communion with me", you are also saying, 'It is me rather than Jesus who has the ability to choose, to constrain whom he regards as within his body and whom he regards as outside it'. There are a large number of groups through church history who have said that, the RCC, the Orthodox Church, the various different mini-communions of Exclusive Brethren etc.
Originally posted by Ad Orientem:
Well, yes, actually. That's exactly what the Church is. How can the Church be anything other than those who are "in communion with me"? Of course, we may differ as to what exactly "me" is, but to hold to any other definition of Church is, quite frankly, rubbish.
quote:As Enoch has more or less said, surely the Church is all those who are in communion with Christ, not those who are in communion with me. To Enoch's 'deluded' and 'arrogant', I would add that I find your claim rather horrifying.
Originally posted by Ad Orientem:
How can the Church be anything other than those who are "in communion with me"? Of course, we may differ as to what exactly "me" is, but to hold to any other definition of Church is, quite frankly, rubbish.
quote:You're entitled to think what you like, of course, but we believe that the Church is a visible body which means visible communion. We believe that we are the Church which Christ founded, that we are the body of Christ. So, if one believes that one of the signs of ecumenicalness is that a council has been received by the whole Church then it doesn't require the approval of the non-Orthodox Churches, or if one happens to be a Roman Catholic it doesn't require the approval of non-RC Churches etc.
Originally posted by South Coast Kevin:
quote:As Enoch has more or less said, surely the Church is all those who are in communion with Christ, not those who are in communion with me. To Enoch's 'deluded' and 'arrogant', I would add that I find your claim rather horrifying.
Originally posted by Ad Orientem:
How can the Church be anything other than those who are "in communion with me"? Of course, we may differ as to what exactly "me" is, but to hold to any other definition of Church is, quite frankly, rubbish.
quote:That's a well known opinion, actually. As a wise man said: most well known facts generally are. As far as the Catholics are concerned it's up there with Nicea and Chalcedon. As far as the Orthodox are concerned it doesn't rate at all. But it fulfils much of the same criteria as the Big Seven do. The main reason for rejecting it is that the Byzantines, by and large, preferred the Turk's Turban to the Cardinal's Hat. I am agnostic on this headgear question preferring, myself, to wear a stylish black flat cap (not liturgically, I hasten to add). But it seems to me to be a somewhat idiosyncratic means of adducing the truth of the Gospel.
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:Your facts are suspect. Florence wasn't an ecumenical council.
Originally posted by Gildas:
If failure to accept the decisions of an ecumenical council makes one a schismatic, then the Orthodox are schismatics for refusing to accept Florence. If failure of the faithful to accept an ecumenical council means that the ecumencity of the council is void then Chalcedon is void. My orthodoxy may be suspect but I think my logic is ineluctable.
quote:I ask again, unhelpful for doing what? Helpfulness means helpfulness to some end. What end does it not help toward?
Originally posted by Ad Orientem:
Unhelpful because it tends towards a lowest common denominator and seeks to categorise into "essentials" and "non-essentials".
quote:Remind me, as it's been a while since I read up on Florence. Which doctrines and dogmas were defined there? Frankly I'm having a hard time thinking that, whatever they decided there, even the Catholics can't possibly rank it with the great councils that defined the Church's position on the Trinity and the Incarnation. After those two great dogmas, everything else, even if important, is hardly "up there with."
Originally posted by Gildas:
As far as the Catholics are concerned it's up there with Nicea and Chalcedon.
quote:Eh?
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:I ask again, unhelpful for doing what? Helpfulness means helpfulness to some end. What end does it not help toward?
Originally posted by Ad Orientem:
Unhelpful because it tends towards a lowest common denominator and seeks to categorise into "essentials" and "non-essentials".
quote:The 17th Ecumenical Council of the Church, held at Basle, Ferrara and Florence, made quite a number of important decisions. First, it established that the ultimate vicarious ruler of the Church is the pope, not a council. (This was not about the dysfunctional stasis of the East, rather there were moves in the West to replace the "monarchy" of the papacy with a regularly meeting "parliament" of councils.) Next, the Council squashed the trumped up charges of heresy against the (supposedly) diverging practices and doctrines of the West (filioque, azymes, purgatory, papal primacy, consecration), duly admitted by the Greek delegation and signed off by the Patriarch of Constantinople. Then the Eastern Church was reunified with that of the West, through the signatures of the Greek delegation. Finally, the Council (now only maintained by the Latins) made ecumenical moves concerning other separated Eastern Churches, like the Nestorians.
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:Remind me, as it's been a while since I read up on Florence. Which doctrines and dogmas were defined there? Frankly I'm having a hard time thinking that, whatever they decided there, even the Catholics can't possibly rank it with the great councils that defined the Church's position on the Trinity and the Incarnation. After those two great dogmas, everything else, even if important, is hardly "up there with."
Originally posted by Gildas:
As far as the Catholics are concerned it's up there with Nicea and Chalcedon.
quote:So you don't like the modern definition of 'ecumenical', is that what you're saying? That's fine, but it's unhelpful then to use the word with your own meaning when the modern, (in your view) unhelpful definition is pretty widely accepted. I think you need to find another word, one which won't lead to so much misunderstanding of what you're saying.
Originally posted by Ad Orientem:
What do you think it means then? Please don't confuse it with modern ecumenism which for the most part is unhelpfull [because it tends towards a lowest common denominator] at best.
quote:Yeah, perhaps so! I suppose in reality no cross-church project or conference is going to include literally every body of people who claim to be Christians. In particular, I can't see groups like the Mormons and Jehovah's Witnesses (I know the latter describe themselves as Christians, do the former too?) being included in such activities.
Originally posted by Ad Orientem:
It's not my definition, but the definition of those who recognised the councils as being ecumenical. Using your definition then none of the councils were ecumenical.
quote:Nothing at all like the Incarnation or the Trinity, however. So, do the Catholics think it's just as important as Nicea and Chalcedon? Please oh please say no.
Originally posted by IngoB:
The 17th Ecumenical Council of the Church, held at Basle, Ferrara and Florence, made quite a number of important decisions. <snip>
quote:I have heard it said that the east was promised military help in exchange for accepting the overlordship of the Pope. Make of that what you will (as I know you will).
Of course, it is fair to say that the efforts of the Byzantine emperor to make the Greek bishops agree to the Latin demands were probably motivated not only by holiness, but also by military concerns.
quote:Darn those bishops not accepting caeseropapism.
And perhaps we should not be surprised at the flip-flopping of the Eastern hierarchy, who followed the emperor while in the West, and then their flock when back in the East.
quote:If the fucking west hadn't fucking sacked fucking Constantinople and raided the God-dammned place, and burned the fucking city down, its strength might well have continued unabated, and the 1453 war would have been a footnote. So yeah the fall of Constantinople was a failure of the fucking West. Fuck the fucking self-righteous "oh why couldn't you accept our sweet little council?" West.
Shortly after Constantinople was overrun by Muslims, de facto locking in the Eastern status quo we still see today. This we can see as a failure of the West: if Western forces had thrown back the Muslim invasion, then perhaps the emperor would have succeeded in pushing through the formal unity at home.
quote:So any meeting of
Originally posted by IngoB:
The RCC for example consists currently of 23 autonomous (sui iuris) particular churches. Furthermore, the RCC considers herself to be the "universal" body of the Church. Combine these two points, and it makes perfect sense for the RCC to call a "Ecumenical Council", as the gathering of the world's autonomous churches - even though they are all RC churches. You can say the same sort of thing about the Eastern Orthodox (again, multiple autonomous churches in communion, who together consider themselves to be the global Church). In a different context, the word "ecumenical" may refer to a much wider collection of churches, of course.
quote:Surely they're not autonomous if the 17th Ecumenical Council declared that the Pope is the ruler of the whole Church?
Originally posted by IngoB:
The RCC for example consists currently of 23 autonomous (sui iuris) particular churches.
quote:*cough*Massacre of the Latins*cough*
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:Nothing at all like the Incarnation or the Trinity, however. So, do the Catholics think it's just as important as Nicea and Chalcedon? Please oh please say no.
Originally posted by IngoB:
The 17th Ecumenical Council of the Church, held at Basle, Ferrara and Florence, made quite a number of important decisions. <snip>
quote:I have heard it said that the east was promised military help in exchange for accepting the overlordship of the Pope. Make of that what you will (as I know you will).
Of course, it is fair to say that the efforts of the Byzantine emperor to make the Greek bishops agree to the Latin demands were probably motivated not only by holiness, but also by military concerns.
quote:Darn those bishops not accepting caeseropapism.
And perhaps we should not be surprised at the flip-flopping of the Eastern hierarchy, who followed the emperor while in the West, and then their flock when back in the East.
quote:If the fucking west hadn't fucking sacked fucking Constantinople and raided the God-dammned place, and burned the fucking city down, its strength might well have continued unabated, and the 1453 war would have been a footnote. So yeah the fall of Constantinople was a failure of the fucking West. Fuck the fucking self-righteous "oh why couldn't you accept our sweet little council?" West.
Shortly after Constantinople was overrun by Muslims, de facto locking in the Eastern status quo we still see today. This we can see as a failure of the West: if Western forces had thrown back the Muslim invasion, then perhaps the emperor would have succeeded in pushing through the formal unity at home.
ETA: not that I'm bitter.
quote:Autonomous and autocephalous are different things. China has autonomous provinces, and Spain has autonomous regions. Of course it's ironic, but there are degrees of autonomy. The Eastern Catholic Churches have more autonomy than Tibet, I would say.
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:Surely they're not autonomous if the 17th Ecumenical Council declared that the Pope is the ruler of the whole Church?
Originally posted by IngoB:
The RCC for example consists currently of 23 autonomous (sui iuris) particular churches.
quote:And the autocephalous Orthodox churches, such as the Archbishops and Patriarchs, aren’t that different from the Roman pontificate. In fact, many of the Orthodox arguments against the authority and primacy of the Pope is, if valid, equally damaging to these. And this is not something that Roman Catholics have come up with. It’s from the mouth of Protopresbyter Alexander Schmemann, in his article “The Idea of Primacy in Orthodox Ecclesiology”:
Originally posted by stonespring:
quote:Autonomous and autocephalous are different things. China has autonomous provinces, and Spain has autonomous regions. Of course it's ironic, but there are degrees of autonomy. The Eastern Catholic Churches have more autonomy than Tibet, I would say.
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:Surely they're not autonomous if the 17th Ecumenical Council declared that the Pope is the ruler of the whole Church?
Originally posted by IngoB:
The RCC for example consists currently of 23 autonomous (sui iuris) particular churches.
quote:The question to ask, is obviously this: Why is it wrong for the Pope to assume authority over bishops, but OK for a Patriarch?
Theoretically, it is true, a personal power of one bishop over another bishop is rejected; the "supreme power" is exercised usually by the Primate together with a governing body: synod, council, etc… For us, however, the important fact is that such supreme ecclesiastical government is always characterized as power over bishops, who are therefore subordinated to it. "Supreme power" is thus introduced into the very structure of the Church as its essential element. The divorce between canonical tradition and the canonical facts is nowhere more obvious than in this universal triumph of the notion of supreme power. Having rejected and still rejecting it in its Roman form, i. e., as universal power, the Orthodox conscience has easily accepted it in the so-called "autocephalies."
quote:I'm not aware of any official ranking concerning the various Ecumenical Councils. However, I see no problem with saying both that all ECs have the same highest authority and that some ECs decided on more important matters than others. It is fairly obvious that the usage of unleavened bread is less fundamental an issue than the structure of the Trinity.
Originally posted by mousethief:
Nothing at all like the Incarnation or the Trinity, however. So, do the Catholics think it's just as important as Nicea and Chalcedon? Please oh please say no.
quote:I'm pretty sure that the hope for military aid was a major motivation for the emperor. I do not know though to what extent there actually were explicit promises of such aid from anyone in the West. I have the impression that it was more a "good will campaign" on the side of the emperor, in the hope that this would lead to tangible military benefits. But I haven't really studied the history. Anyway, I would be rather surprised if the emperor gave a damn about any of the religious ado, other than as a bargaining chip for his political game. From my perspective, he likely did the right thing for the wrong reasons...
Originally posted by mousethief:
I have heard it said that the east was promised military help in exchange for accepting the overlordship of the Pope. Make of that what you will (as I know you will).
quote:Sorry, I missed the part where they stood up to the emperor while being confronted by him? To suck up to whoever is most in your face at the moment is not exactly a demonstration of moral fortitude...
Originally posted by mousethief:
Darn those bishops not accepting caeseropapism.
quote:CL mentioned the "Massacre of the Latins" in 1182 AD already. Apart from the atrocity itself, wiping out something like 60,000 RCs (mostly Italians) in Constantinople in the most brutal manner, it was a sign of long-term trade conflict of the Byzantine Empire with Venice, where the former was removing the latter from its long established privileged position as trading partner. Come 1202 AD, the Venetians had invested pretty much all their money into organising the transport for the Fourth Crusade. Turns out they couldn't pay their bills. So who actually came up with the bright idea of taking Constantinople to recover the money? Did the Venetians, who had their trade slashed and their people massacred, have this idea? No, they had the crusaders take on a rebelling Roman Catholic city for them. But when the Byzantine prince Alexios IV Angelos, who wanted to take the throne back for his father from his uncle, the reigning emperor Alexios III Angelos, promised them lots of money for that, they listened. Unfortunately, Alexios IV Angelos had problems delivering what he promised after the crusader army did what he had asked them to do, and made him co-emperor with his dad. He was then murdered by the Byzantine nobleman Alexios Doukas Mourtzouphlos, who basically told the Venetians / crusaders to shove off without their promised payment. Then they attacked, sacked and plundered Constantinople. So, yeah. Not the brightest moment in the history of the West, but hardly a matter in which the Byzantine population and rulers were just innocent victims. It was more a matter of the Byzantines sowing the wind, and reaping the Venetian / crusader whirlwind.
Originally posted by mousethief:
If the fucking west hadn't fucking sacked fucking Constantinople and raided the God-dammned place, and burned the fucking city down, its strength might well have continued unabated, and the 1453 war would have been a footnote. So yeah the fall of Constantinople was a failure of the fucking West. Fuck the fucking self-righteous "oh why couldn't you accept our sweet little council?" West. ETA: not that I'm bitter.
quote:It's like saying that Queen Elizabeth II is the ruler of the UK, Australia and Canada, but that those are nevertheless independent countries. The pope has relatively speaking more power over these autonomous churches than the Queen over those countries, that is true. He's more of a monarch than she is. Nevertheless, these churches are "sui iuris", operate under a different canon law than the Latin rite Church, are led by their own Patriarch, etc.
Originally posted by mousethief:
Surely they're not autonomous if the 17th Ecumenical Council declared that the Pope is the ruler of the whole Church?
quote:One might as well say that the immediate authority of the bishop over his diocese renders all the priests operating under him useless. Just as a bishop does not run his diocese by micromanaging the parishes instead of the priests, so the pope does not run the Church by micromanaging the dioceses instead of the bishops. In both cases the immediate authority comes into play when there are problems. In a showdown between a priest and his bishop (at ecclesial level), the priest loses. In a showdown between a bishop and the pope (at ecclesial level), the bishop loses. Ideally, such showdowns should never happen, and they are in fact rare. But when they do, then the authority structure is clear.
Originally posted by Ad Orientem:
Not only that, but according to Vatican I his jurisdiction over the whole Church is apparently immediate, rendering all the bishops useless.
quote:Sure, why not? In its context. It's just not an ecumenical council the RCC attributes any significance to as far as her doctrine, law and discipline is concerned. Different context.
Originally posted by Garasu:
So any meeting of
FWCC is an ecumenical council?
quote:"... such neat and tidiness is a human invention."
Originally posted by Ad Orientem:
As I posted earlier in this thread:
"From an Orthodox persective any heirachy among the bishops is ultimately only a matter of convenience, making it easier to govern the Church. If any honour is given to one bishop above another it's not because it's essential to the continuing existence of the Church. The Church doesn't necessarily need the patriarchies in order to exist. All it needs is at least one orthodox bishop around whom the faithful can congregate, but that could be the bishop of anywhere."
For some it may seem like only a subtle difference but reality it's a fundamental difference in ecclesiology between East and West. This is why the West has had to create an apparatus around the bishop of Rome, namely the "Petrine ministry", in order to make everything look neat and tidy (and such neat and tidiness is a human invention).
quote:Dear God, yes the population of Constantinople brought it upon their own heads. Those nuns who were raped deserved it, as did every priest who was spitted. Do they teach you this in CCD? Holy fucking shit.
Originally posted by IngoB:
Not the brightest moment in the history of the West, but hardly a matter in which the Byzantine population and rulers were just innocent victims.
quote:All of them, yes. Every single fucking last one.
It was more a matter of the Byzantines sowing the wind, and reaping the Venetian / crusader whirlwind.
quote:So which of the pope's dictates are they free to ignore?
quote:It's like saying that Queen Elizabeth II is the ruler of the UK, Australia and Canada, but that those are nevertheless independent countries. The pope has relatively speaking more power over these autonomous churches than the Queen over those countries, that is true. He's more of a monarch than she is. Nevertheless, these churches are "sui iuris", operate under a different canon law than the Latin rite Church, are led by their own Patriarch, etc.
Originally posted by mousethief:
Surely they're not autonomous if the 17th Ecumenical Council declared that the Pope is the ruler of the whole Church?
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:Dear God, yes the population of Constantinople brought it upon their own heads. Those nuns who were raped deserved it, as did every priest who was spitted. Do they teach you this in CCD? Holy fucking shit.
Originally posted by IngoB:
Not the brightest moment in the history of the West, but hardly a matter in which the Byzantine population and rulers were just innocent victims.
quote:All of them, yes. Every single fucking last one.
It was more a matter of the Byzantines sowing the wind, and reaping the Venetian / crusader whirlwind.
quote:So which of the pope's dictates are they free to ignore?
quote:It's like saying that Queen Elizabeth II is the ruler of the UK, Australia and Canada, but that those are nevertheless independent countries. The pope has relatively speaking more power over these autonomous churches than the Queen over those countries, that is true. He's more of a monarch than she is. Nevertheless, these churches are "sui iuris", operate under a different canon law than the Latin rite Church, are led by their own Patriarch, etc.
Originally posted by mousethief:
Surely they're not autonomous if the 17th Ecumenical Council declared that the Pope is the ruler of the whole Church?
quote:The idea that something needs to be clearly stated in Scripture in order to be doctrine seems as strange to me as I'm sure many of my ideas sound to you. But I'm far from an orthodox RC anyway.
Originally posted by Dubious Thomas:
quote:"... such neat and tidiness is a human invention."
Originally posted by Ad Orientem:
As I posted earlier in this thread:
"From an Orthodox persective any heirachy among the bishops is ultimately only a matter of convenience, making it easier to govern the Church. If any honour is given to one bishop above another it's not because it's essential to the continuing existence of the Church. The Church doesn't necessarily need the patriarchies in order to exist. All it needs is at least one orthodox bishop around whom the faithful can congregate, but that could be the bishop of anywhere."
For some it may seem like only a subtle difference but reality it's a fundamental difference in ecclesiology between East and West. This is why the West has had to create an apparatus around the bishop of Rome, namely the "Petrine ministry", in order to make everything look neat and tidy (and such neat and tidiness is a human invention).
So is the idea that the Church needs "at least one orthodox bishop around whom the faithful can congregate" in order to exist. Ignatius of Antioch (God bless him!) has a lot to answer for on this bit of silliness.
Ignatius said (I'm quoting from memory): Where the bishop is, there is the Church.
Jesus, however, said: "For where two or three are gathered in my name, I am there among them" (Matthew 18:20).
And some English guys got it just right when they said: "The visible Church of Christ is a congregation of faithful men, in which the pure Word of God is preached, and the Sacraments be duly ministered according to Christ's ordinance, in all those things that of necessity are requisite to the same."
If you Roman Catholics and Orthodox could just agree to accept the authentic biblical doctrine of the Church, a lot of problems could be solved.
quote:I'm not sure if the RCC has fully resolved the seeming conflict in its Vatican-II-era statements regarding the local bishop in his diocese being the fulness of the Church and the collegiality of bishops, etc., with universal ordinary jurisdiction. Universal ordinary jurisdiction is clearly the doctrine, but we only see it in action when a bishop goes bonkers and the Pope deposes him (usually a bishop is pressured to resign instead - so the appearance of collegiality remains) - can anyone think of an example in the past two centuries of a Pope deposing a bishop other than that one bishop in Australia? The thing that makes the whole seem appear confusing is that there is no degree of holy orders higher than bishop. The Pope is not ordained to anything higher and if he has already been consecrated bishop upon his election, which is now always the case in practice, then he is just installed on his throne like any other bishop. So he has universal ordinary jurisdiction and the extraordinary magisterium at his disposal, but you don't really see it in terms of any ordination that gives him that special charism. It's a bit more invisible than a lot of the other ministries of the RCC, because 99% of the time you can argue that the Pope is just "advising and teaching" and that the bishops are going along, not that the pope is compelling the bishops to do anything. Priests are different. Priests' sacramental ministry flow completely from the ordinary bishop in RCC theology - I'm not sure that you could argue that a bishop's ministry flows from the ministry of the Pope. Maybe you can, but I haven't heard it before.
Originally posted by IngoB:
One might as well say that the immediate authority of the bishop over his diocese renders all the priests operating under him useless. Just as a bishop does not run his diocese by micromanaging the parishes instead of the priests, so the pope does not run the Church by micromanaging the dioceses instead of the bishops. In both cases the immediate authority comes into play when there are problems. In a showdown between a priest and his bishop (at ecclesial level), the priest loses. In a showdown between a bishop and the pope (at ecclesial level), the bishop loses. Ideally, such showdowns should never happen, and they are in fact rare. But when they do, then the authority structure is clear.
quote:Stonespring,
Originally posted by stonespring:
The idea that something needs to be clearly stated in Scripture in order to be doctrine seems as strange to me as I'm sure many of my ideas sound to you. But I'm far from an orthodox RC anyway.
![[Devil]](graemlins/devil.gif)
quote:How does one celebrate?
Originally posted by Dubious Thomas:
[QUOTE]
By the way, as of this moment, you're at 666 posts!
quote:Right now the Papalists put the filioque into the creed when it is in Latin or in translations of the Latin liturgy into other languages (I am not sure what happens when the Roman Rite is celebrated in Greek, not that that happens very often). The Eastern Catholic Churches tend to not insert the filioque into the Creed when it is in Greek or when the Liturgy is a translation of Greek into another language (or a translation of Church Slavonic into another language, which was originally a translation of Greek into Church Slavonic). Not sure what is done in the non-Byzantine Eastern Rite Churches. Also the filioque used to be there in a lot of the Byzantine Eastern Rite Liturgies but around Vatican II there was a process of de-Latinization and taking the filioque out was part of it.
Originally posted by Enoch:
A simple question. If the Patriarchate of the West genuinely regards Florence as an Ecumenical Council, why isn't the form of the Nicene Creed that the Holy Spirit 'proceeds from the Father, through the Son' now universal in the west? Or was that only agreed conditionally on the others adopting it too?
Can an Ecumenical Council make a pronouncement conditionally?
quote:Alas, the moment has passed!
Originally posted by stonespring:
quote:How does one celebrate?
Originally posted by Dubious Thomas:
[QUOTE]
By the way, as of this moment, you're at 666 posts!
![[Frown]](frown.gif)
quote:Boy, does that sound like a long-after-the-fact fudge.
Originally posted by stonespring:
The explanation I have heard is that the filioque is doctrinally incorrect when worded in Greek, but doctrinally correct when worded in Latin.
quote:Indeed! And, if serious people are actually making this claim....
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:Boy, does that sound like a long-after-the-fact fudge.
Originally posted by stonespring:
The explanation I have heard is that the filioque is doctrinally incorrect when worded in Greek, but doctrinally correct when worded in Latin.
quote:Yep, and that's why in Orthodoxy, for intsance, a priest dismissed by his bishop simply ceases being a priest. All orthodox bishops are St. Peter's successors.
Originally posted by stonespring:
Priests' sacramental ministry flow completely from the ordinary bishop....I'm not sure that you could argue that a bishop's ministry flows from the ministry of the Pope.
quote:No answers to this yet? I can't see how it's a ridiculous question in the overall flow of this question about the authority of the Pope of Rome (pace CL's oh-so-helpful eyeroll).
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:So which of the pope's dictates are they free to ignore?
Originally posted by IngoB:
It's like saying that Queen Elizabeth II is the ruler of the UK, Australia and Canada, but that those are nevertheless independent countries. The pope has relatively speaking more power over these autonomous churches than the Queen over those countries, that is true. He's more of a monarch than she is. Nevertheless, these churches are "sui iuris", operate under a different canon law than the Latin rite Church, are led by their own Patriarch, etc.
quote:It sounds like the truth to me. Theological language depends on context. The context presupposed by the Nicene Creed is a Greek theological context in which the filioque sounds wierd. The Latin theological context is different. That is why, at the Synod of Haethfelth (possibly Hatfield in Hertfordshire, England) in A.D. 680, the English bishops stated in their confession of faith that they glofified the Father, the Son, and "the Holy Spirit proceeding from the Father and Son indescribably (glorificantes...Spiritum Sanctum procedentem ex Patre et Filio inenarrabiliter)", and this confession was accepted as orthodox by St. Theodore.
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:Boy, does that sound like a long-after-the-fact fudge.
Originally posted by stonespring:
The explanation I have heard is that the filioque is doctrinally incorrect when worded in Greek, but doctrinally correct when worded in Latin.
quote:How different can "and the son" be?
Originally posted by Mockingbird:
quote:It sounds like the truth to me. Theological language depends on context. The context presupposed by the Nicene Creed is a Greek theological context in which the filioque sounds wierd. The Latin theological context is different. That is why, at the Synod of Haethfelth (possibly Hatfield in Hertfordshire, England) in A.D. 680, the English bishops stated in their confession of faith that they glofified the Father, the Son, and "the Holy Spirit proceeding from the Father and Son indescribably (glorificantes...Spiritum Sanctum procedentem ex Patre et Filio inenarrabiliter)", and this confession was accepted as orthodox by St. Theodore.
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:Boy, does that sound like a long-after-the-fact fudge.
Originally posted by stonespring:
The explanation I have heard is that the filioque is doctrinally incorrect when worded in Greek, but doctrinally correct when worded in Latin.
quote:There's nothing "weird" about the simple formula filioque. It can easily be translated into three Greek words that mean exactly the same thing in Greek: "and from the Son."
Originally posted by Mockingbird:
It sounds like the truth to me. Theological language depends on context. The context presupposed by the Nicene Creed is a Greek theological context in which the filioque sounds wierd.
quote:St. Theodore may very well have believed this expression was orthodox, but he had no authority to speak for the rest of the Eastern Church. I doubt that most Eastern bishops would have thought adding "inenarrabiliter" and making the meaningless change of "filioque" to "et filio" solved the fundamental problem that the West was adding words to the Creed that contradicted the faith expressed in that Creed.
The Latin theological context is different. That is why, at the Synod of Haethfelth (possibly Hatfield in Hertfordshire, England) in A.D. 680, the English bishops stated in their confession of faith that they glofified the Father, the Son, and "the Holy Spirit proceeding from the Father and Son indescribably (glorificantes...Spiritum Sanctum procedentem ex Patre et Filio inenarrabiliter)", and this confession was accepted as orthodox by St. Theodore.
quote:Not trying to saddle you with the RC's heresies, just arguing the case.
Originally posted by stonespring:
BTW, I'm not trying to argue the RC side here - and thinking. About the details of the Trinity in this away makes my head spin. But I think the whole discussion if it is interesting.
quote:We admit it's true.
Originally posted by stonespring:
How do the Orthodox respond to the often-heard criticism that the whole section of the Creed about the Holy Spirit was added to the Nicene text at the Council of Constantinople?
quote:That I do not know. Do you have a link to where it says this? My own response would be, "They were wrong to make that demand, as their creed didn't cover the Holy Spirit adequately." I don't know what the EOC's response would be.
Didn't the Council of Nicaea say not to add anything to its Creed?
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:We admit it's true.
Originally posted by stonespring:
How do the Orthodox respond to the often-heard criticism that the whole section of the Creed about the Holy Spirit was added to the Nicene text at the Council of Constantinople?
quote:That I do not know. Do you have a link to where it says this? My own response would be, "They were wrong to make that demand, as their creed didn't cover the Holy Spirit adequately." I don't know what the EOC's response would be.
Didn't the Council of Nicaea say not to add anything to its Creed?
quote:Ok - so I tried to look things up. The Council of Nicaea didn't say anything about not being able to add to or change the creed. I Constantinople then added the part about the Holy Spirit (I don't know if they said anything at this council about whether no more changes could be made to the Creed but I don't think so. I'm also not sure whether the addition of the part about the Holy Spirit was seen as a separate statement of faith or whether it was seen as being added to the Nicene Creed - this makes what happened later at Ephesus more confusing).
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:We admit it's true.
Originally posted by stonespring:
How do the Orthodox respond to the often-heard criticism that the whole section of the Creed about the Holy Spirit was added to the Nicene text at the Council of Constantinople?
quote:That I do not know. Do you have a link to where it says this? My own response would be, "They were wrong to make that demand, as their creed didn't cover the Holy Spirit adequately." I don't know what the EOC's response would be.
Didn't the Council of Nicaea say not to add anything to its Creed?
quote:Wait, this is the same verb as in John 15:26. How do we know their translation of that verse is accurate, if their verb doesn't properly translate the creed? And if their verb doesn't properly translate John 15:26, how can we know that ANY of their translation is correct?
Originally posted by Dubious Thomas:
To follow up on Mousethief's point....
So, the Latin Church came up with a translation of the Greek "proceeds" that cannot adequately represent the specific meaning of the Greek verb?
quote:Apparently, it has now been found to explain the difference between those churches that are technically categorised as Monophysite and the rest of us.
Originally posted by mousethief:
... This little fact actually explains a lot in the problems between the East and the West.
quote:To correct a one-sided account of human failure is not to endorse the failure. The Massacre of the Latins was not a "proper" war against (male) combatants of an opposing army, it was an ethnic cleansing of 60,0000 people. The sick were killed in their hospital beds, families were slaughtered, people were sold into slavery. And the religious naturally came in for "special treatment". For example, the papal legate was beheaded, his head bound to a dog's tail and then that dog was chased through the streets of Constantinople. Does this justify the atrocities of the Venetians and crusaders when they twenty years later sacked the city? No, it doesn't. But it certainly makes them more understandable in my eyes. And the sack of the city occurred after the Byzantine prince inviting Latin military intervention, which was "cleanly" fought did not pay up what he had promised, and was murdered by members of the Byzantine court, putting a bitter enemy of the Latins in charge. The situation really was ... tempting, and the evil that resulted rather predictable. I'm not condoning the actions of the Latin forces, but an even-handed account simply cannot paint the Byzantines - rulers and population of Constantinople - as purely naive and innocent victims. Such an account is the sort of partisan one-sidedness which is part of the problem, not of the solution.
Originally posted by mousethief:
Dear God, yes the population of Constantinople brought it upon their own heads. Those nuns who were raped deserved it, as did every priest who was spitted. Do they teach you this in CCD? Holy fucking shit.
quote:If the pope issues a direct command to them, then they are not free to ignore it (assuming it is a reasonable command within the bounds of faith and morals, exercising his due governance). The pope has the same "governing power" in person as an Ecumenical Council as collective. Orthodox bishops are also not at liberty to ignore the commands of an EC. This does however not mean that the pope "runs the show", locally. Just as the ECs do not do so for the Orthodox. For the most part, popes and ECs provide broad guidelines for operation and do not micromanage. But if necessary, both of them do. The only difference here between the Orthodox and RCs is that the "higher than an individual bishop" power structure of the Orthodox is 1) not sorted out properly (see this thread), and 2) has been practically dysfunctional for a thousand years. You can try to pretend that this is some kind of virtue, but that's all smoke and mirrors. The truth is that also in Orthodoxy there is a power that can interfere with the governance of a local bishop, remove him or even excommunicate him. The mere fact that these mechanisms are broken does not mean that they are not there. The Latins are running a well-constructed, diligently maintained and frequently oiled (pun intended) mechanism by comparison. We can discuss whether this mechanism is so much more functional in practice because it has the pope on top, or if that is simply an accident of history. But the Orthodox cannot viably claim that their bishops have no ecclesial power above themselves. Rather, their way of doing church makes Italians appear highly organised, punctual, efficient, impartial and rule-abiding by comparison.
Originally posted by mousethief:
So which of the pope's dictates are they free to ignore?
quote:In what way is that even remotely a fair summary of my comments? That some nuns were among the innocent rape and/or murder victims of the sack of Constantinople does not mean that the Byzantine rulers and the population of Constantinople had no part in what happened there. In fact, it turns out that they contributed significantly to bringing this atrocity on their heads, and in part by committing an equally horrible atrocity against the (property, friends and family of) their tormentors earlier. That's simply what happened.
Originally posted by mousethief:
Ah, so the fourth crusade was a righteous punishment of the entire city for the sins committed by some of the city. The nuns who were raped, for instance, were directly responsible for killing how many Latins? Answers on a postcard.
quote:I was made to admit that? It is obvious that the pope is a "super-bishop" in the RCC. The question is simply what sort of "super" we are talking about. And as far as the Orthodox is concerned, the question is whether that same sort of "super" is present in their ecclesiology as well. It turns out that yes, it is very much present, but it has been dormant for a thousand years because the Orthodox just cannot get their shit together. That may be a swipe, but one that is to the point both of the subject matter and the Orthodox attempt to paint themselves as oh so different, and hence not gratuitous.
Originally posted by mousethief:
And the gratuitous swipe against the Orthodox Church because you were made to admit that the Pope really is a super-bishop? Please.
quote:Pretty much; from the 1984 Common Declaration of Pope John Paul II of Rome and Syriac Orthodox Patriarch Ignatius Zakka I Iwas of Antioch and All the East:
Originally posted by Enoch:
quote:Apparently, it has now been found to explain the difference between those churches that are technically categorised as Monophysite and the rest of us.
Originally posted by mousethief:
... This little fact actually explains a lot in the problems between the East and the West.
quote:
"The confusions and schisms that occurred between their Churches in the later centuries, they realize today, in no way affect or touch the substance of their faith, since these arose only because of differences in terminology and culture and in the various formulae adopted by different theological schools to express the same matter. Accordingly, we find today no real basis for the sad divisions and schisms that subsequently arose between us concerning the doctrine of Incarnation. In words and life we confess the true doctrine concerning Christ our Lord, notwithstanding the differences in interpretation of such a doctrine which arose at the time of the Council of Chalcedon."
quote:Really. If you had bothered to actually read what I had written, then you would know that I had equated to "super-bishopness" of the pope to an Ecumenical Council. The very thing that would govern the Orthodox infallibly and universally, super-episcopally, if the Orthodox communion wasn't a dysfunctional collection of national (and nationalistic) churches who are united by their shared schism from the pope more than by anything else.
Originally posted by Ad Orientem:
Really. When has an Orthodox bishop ever claimed infalliblity or universal jurisdiction? But at least you admit you brlieve the pope is a super-bishop and it shows the fundamental difference in our ecclesiologies. The neat a tidiness that has been created around the pope is a human invention.
quote:You continue unabashedly to misread and misrepresent what I write. Nowhere have I said that that the sack of Constantinople was justified. Nowhere have I said that any particular person in Constantinople deserved the atrocities of the Venetians / crusaders as punishment. In fact, I have explicitly said the opposite, and that multiple times.
Originally posted by mousethief:
Thing is, IngoB, you continue to blame the population of Constantinople en masse for the sins of some of them. It's like people (I know one, and he's otherwise fairly rational) who say "The Palestinians deserve anything the Israelis do to them because they have acted so stupidly in the years since 1948." Punishing an entire people group for the sins of some of them is actually against the Geneva Conventions. But apparently not against the teachings of the Catholic Church.
quote:Isn't what you accuse IngoB of doing the same thing you do here? You write:
Originally posted by mousethief:
Once again you lump the "population of Constantinople" into a homogeneous mass, and blame them all for the Slaughter of the Latins. That's six.
quote:It looks to me like you're lumping the entire West "into a homogeneous mass, and blame them all" for the Sack of Constantinople.
If the fucking west hadn't fucking sacked fucking Constantinople and raided the God-dammned place, and burned the fucking city down, its strength might well have continued unabated, and the 1453 war would have been a footnote. So yeah the fall of Constantinople was a failure of the fucking West. Fuck the fucking self-righteous "oh why couldn't you accept our sweet little council?" West.
quote:*wiggle* *wiggle* *squirm*
Originally posted by mousethief:
In short, using "the West" as a synecdoche for the leaders of the Catholic forces of western Europe is of a different nature from using "the population of Constantinople" as a synecdoche for that part of the population that took part in the murder of the Latins because of the grossly disparate uses that are being made of the two.
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
IngoB has yet to admit that not all the population of Constantinople took part in the massacre of the Latins, and he continues to blame the people of Constantinople, without qualification, and there's the big thing, all I'm asking for is a qualification and he is unwilling and unable to provide me one, for the destruction of their city.
Yes, mousethief, not all of the population of Constantinople took part in the Massacre of the Latins. I never asserted that they did, nothing I said implied that they did, my point does not in the slightest rely on the assumption that they did. In fact, I have already stated this above: "That some nuns were among the innocent rape and/or murder victims of the sack of Constantinople does not mean that the Byzantine rulers and the population of Constantinople had no part in what happened there." Note, I was not saying that just your nuns were the (only) innocent victims, but that they were among them.quote:I take it then that a qualification was not really all you were after... To avoid further misunderstandings, let's simply hear what you consider as the significance of the Massacre of the Latins on one hand, and the Byzantine rules calling in the Venetians / crusaders to settle their dynasty disputes militarily on the other hand. Do these historical facts play any role in a fair evaluation of the sack of Constantinople, or not?
Originally posted by mousethief:
If you haven't figured out by now, and clearly you haven't, nothing I can say can clear it up for you.
quote:I don't see any jurisdictional changes at all. Too much ego and $$ involved for anybody to back down.
Originally posted by stonespring:
If this thread can possibly be brought back to the OP, what are possible outcomes from this council for the jurisdictional disputes in Ukraine? In the diaspora (W. Europe, North America, Australasia, etc.)? Could they settle calendar differences among themselves? What other outcomes (in terms of actual decisions) are possible?
quote:Sigh. That would be nice.
Originally posted by Ad Orientem:
I'd like to see agreement on the calendar, be it Julian or Gregorian, but that we all celebrate the major feasts on the same days.
quote:How many Orthodox bishops believe the dates of Easter and other key feasts are something where compromise is capable? Is the unlikelihood of a common calendar (I'm talking among the Orthodox) really due to politics or doctrine?
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:Sigh. That would be nice.
Originally posted by Ad Orientem:
I'd like to see agreement on the calendar, be it Julian or Gregorian, but that we all celebrate the major feasts on the same days.
quote:Hard to say. Certainly nobody would admit it's down to politics and not doctrine; all claim it's doctrine. How many are being honest? How many are fooling themselves? I don't know how we can know.
Originally posted by stonespring:
How many Orthodox bishops believe the dates of Easter and other key feasts are something where compromise is capable? Is the unlikelihood of a common calendar (I'm talking among the Orthodox) really due to politics or doctrine?
quote:I'd be interested to know if any of our Orthodox contributors see this as a serious impediment to Orthodox growth in the diaspora, and what possible solutions there could be. For example, in the UK, I think there are enough Orthodox Christians to justify a UK jurisdiction, which could go towards eliminating the confusion the overlapping jurisdictions cause.
4. What to do about overlapping jurisdictions in the diaspora
quote:Even before you get to differing origins, there can be devastating fights within some churches. There has been one in the local Macedonian Church for the last decade, with what I would imagine are very large sums of money being spent on lawyers' fees (not that I'm against that of course, but perhaps a church and its congregation have better ways to spend their money)
Originally posted by stonespring:
If this thread can possibly be brought back to the OP, what are possible outcomes from this council for the jurisdictional disputes in Ukraine? In the diaspora (W. Europe, North America, Australasia, etc.)? Could they settle calendar differences among themselves? What other outcomes (in terms of actual decisions) are possible?
quote:Perhaps a return to the days when the date was fixed by the Patriarch of Alexandria would save everyone a lot of trouble and give a way out. But I can't see that happening.
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:Sigh. That would be nice.
Originally posted by Ad Orientem:
I'd like to see agreement on the calendar, be it Julian or Gregorian, but that we all celebrate the major feasts on the same days.
quote:This is where the real reform needs to come in the Orthodox Church. The calendar is small картофель compared to this. And as I said above, there is a lot of ego and $$ wrapped up in who gets to control churches in North America. So that becomes the logjam to fixing the whole problem. I don't see any solution to this in my lifetime, or probably my children's.
Originally posted by PaulTH*:
quote:I'd be interested to know if any of our Orthodox contributors see this as a serious impediment to Orthodox growth in the diaspora, and what possible solutions there could be. For example, in the UK, I think there are enough Orthodox Christians to justify a UK jurisdiction, which could go towards eliminating the confusion the overlapping jurisdictions cause.
4. What to do about overlapping jurisdictions in the diaspora
quote:I think this is rather sad. Yesterday I was in the beautiful English village of Walsingham, noted for alomst a thousand years of Christian devotion, cut short by Henry VII's destructive policies in 1539. Since it's resoration last century, many English Christian groups have established a foothold there, including the Orthodox, and I visited both their churches there. One, St Seraphim is under the jurisdiction of the Bishop of Sourozh (Russian Orthodox Church). The other, Holy Transfiguration is under the Ecumenical Patriarch. This can't possibly help them to evangelise.
Originally posted by Mousethief:
This is where the real reform needs to come in the Orthodox Church. The calendar is small картофель compared to this. And as I said above, there is a lot of ego and $$ wrapped up in who gets to control churches in North America. So that becomes the logjam to fixing the whole problem. I don't see any solution to this in my lifetime, or probably my children's.
quote:Sorry typo. I meant Henry VIII's .
Henry VII's
quote:Indeed, they need to fix it. On the other hand many (far too many) Orthodox think of the OC as a collection of ethnic country clubs with a religious veneer. Why would a non-Greek want to join a Greek parish? Or a non-Russian a Russian parish?
Originally posted by PaulTH*:
if the Orthodox Church wants to be a force to be reckoned with in countries outside the traditional jurisdictions, the Ecumenical Council needs to give some serious thought to this.
quote:From the "Please Stop Being on My Side" files.
Originally posted by PaulTH*:
While this isn't strictly about the Ecumenical Council, it doesn't give much hope that any improvement in relations with the West is going to come anytime soon. I can genuinely say that I'm attracted to so many aspects of Orthodox theology. But their relationship, or more accurately lack of it, with the rest of the world does nothing for me.
![[Disappointed]](graemlins/disappointed.gif)
quote:I saw "Andreas" and I thought you meant Squiggle.
Originally posted by CL:
Meh, Andreas and Seraphim are well known for being on the lunatic fringe of the Church of Greece.
quote:I've found the only way I keep my faith is by keeping out of church politics and largely remaining ignorant of what's going on "behind the scenes". I mean that for my own parish, let alone my diocese, the wider church in this country, or even what goes on elsewhere. I'm sure it's an unholy mess, but I know the majority of priests, bishops, etc. are good people trying to do their best. You are going to have fundamentalists, and the MO of fundamentalists is to attack their co-religionists; which whether these Metropolitans care to admit or not is what Catholics are to them. I'm sure there are some Old Calendar bishops and priests in Greece who would say the exact same things about these two Metropolitans - that they're heretics, laymen, serve the "New World Order", etc. That is their mindset. I gather from reading that Archbishop Ieronymos is actually a nice guy and a moderate but is stuck in the middle of deep conflicts in the Greek Church. I always read screeds such as the one by the two Metropolitans as not really being about who they are attacking, but pointing to some kind of inner conflicts and insecurities.
Originally posted by PaulTH*:
While this isn't strictly about the Ecumenical Council, it doesn't give much hope that any improvement in relations with the West is going to come anytime soon. I can genuinely say that I'm attracted to so many aspects of Orthodox theology. But their relationship, or more accurately lack of it, with the rest of the world does nothing for me.
quote:I'd expand that to include all screeds, religious or otherwise.
Originally posted by Alt Wally:
I always read screeds such as the one by the two Metropolitans as not really being about who they are attacking, but pointing to some kind of inner conflicts and insecurities.
quote:Not sure if they ordaining me a bishop would be a wise choice. Now that I think about it, they have made worse choices in the past
Originally posted by mousethief:
I saw "Andreas" and I thought you meant Squiggle.
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
quote:They refer to a bodily assumption that supposedly took place before she experienced death. To them, Mary died, her soul got separated from her body, then Jesus united soul and body, effected her resurrection and transferred her to Heavens, body and soul.
Originally posted by mousethief:
Weird they denounce the bodily assumption of Mary
quote:Wow - turns out you can call spirits from the vasty deep!
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:I saw "Andreas" and I thought you meant Squiggle.
Originally posted by CL:
Meh, Andreas and Seraphim are well known for being on the lunatic fringe of the Church of Greece.
quote:Surely not BEFORE she died.
Originally posted by El Greco:
They refer to a bodily assumption that supposedly took place before she experienced death.
quote:Now taking requests.
Originally posted by Dave W.:
Wow - turns out you can call spirits from the vasty deep!
quote:That is certainly the OC's teaching. Officially, IIRC, the RCC is neutral on the question of whether she died first. One of our resident Catholics can set me straight here.
Originally posted by leo:
quote:Surely not BEFORE she died.
Originally posted by El Greco:
They refer to a bodily assumption that supposedly took place before she experienced death.
Like Jesus, she died first.
quote:Just wanted to wish you all a happy Easter, skimmed through the site and noticed mousethief's comment
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
El Greco
Welcome back. Is this a resurrection (of interest in the Ship, that is)?
quote:You are the Witch of Endor and I claim my £5
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:Now taking requests.
Originally posted by Dave W.:
Wow - turns out you can call spirits from the vasty deep!
quote:That is certainly the OC's teaching. Officially, IIRC, the RCC is neutral on the question of whether she died first. One of our resident Catholics can set me straight here.
Originally posted by leo:
quote:Surely not BEFORE she died.
Originally posted by El Greco:
They refer to a bodily assumption that supposedly took place before she experienced death.
Like Jesus, she died first.
quote:You're quite right, mousthief. The RCC is officially agnostic on whether Our Lady tasted death before she was assumed body and soul - which leaves open the possibility that she didn't.
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:That is certainly the OC's teaching. Officially, IIRC, the RCC is neutral on the question of whether she died first. One of our resident Catholics can set me straight here.
Originally posted by leo:
quote:Surely not BEFORE she died.
Originally posted by El Greco:
They refer to a bodily assumption that supposedly took place before she experienced death.
Like Jesus, she died first.
quote:Good to hear from you again Andreas. Come and chat again!
Originally posted by El Greco:
Just wanted to wish you all a happy Easter, skimmed through the site and noticed mousethief's comment
quote:Right, which is why y'all call Aug 15 "the Assumption" while we call it "the Dormition" -- we're committing to her having died, whereas y'all leave that an open question. And of course we both agree she was assumed. I assume that back in the bowels of time, different traditions arose in different places as to the end of her earthly life.
Originally posted by Chesterbelloc:
The RCC is officially agnostic on whether Our Lady tasted death before she was assumed body and soul - which leaves open the possibility that she didn't.
quote:It would be more accurate to say that the RCC does not absolutely require her faithful to believe that she died before being assumed to heaven. Pope Pius XII left this question deliberately open in his dogmatic ex cathedra definition, suggesting that he at least did not consider this question settled at the level of "Divine certainty". However, the Eastern Catholics in the RCC celebrate no different from their Orthodox cousins. Furthermore, her death is explicitly mentioned in historical Western liturgy (in the "Sacramentarium Gregorianum" sent by Pope Hadrian I to Charles the Great), and there are some incidental mentions in the Church Fathers and more pros than cons in less authoritative writing from late antiquity. Ludwig Ott in his well known book on RC dogmatic theology considers her death prior to the assumption as "sententia communior" of the RCC, where "communis" would be widely believed and generally accepted by theologians but left free for opinions, and "communior" is the same but more so. Basically, the vast majority of RCs (or at least RC theologians, given that it's not a typical topic of reflection for most RCs) think that the BVM died before being assumed. But if you think that she was assumed without dying first, or after being resurrected Lazarus-style first (also an existing opinion), then Rome is not going to call you a heretic over that. That's not exactly "neutral" though, unless one defines as neutral all that is not binding.
Originally posted by mousethief:
That is certainly the OC's teaching. Officially, IIRC, the RCC is neutral on the question of whether she died first. One of our resident Catholics can set me straight here.
quote:Yes, but I'm not sure that this on its own would get you more than a "huh?" from people who have not followed our brief discussion here. There also is quite possibly a more interesting story to tell here at the level of "folk belief", concerning both the differences and similarities of Orthodox and RCs and the various opinions held in the RCC. I would bet (but do not know) that there is some strong regional RC belief somewhere out there that Pius XII didn't want to harsh. Unfortunately, I'm really clueless on folk belief/customs, since I do not come from believing folk and most of that sort of stuff is passed on in families / communities without getting into official sources or even prominently the internet.
Originally posted by mousethief:
Fair enough. Would it be fair to day that dogmatically it's neutral, but doctrinally it's dormitionist?
quote:1-1=0. Dogma.
Originally posted by stonespring:
What is the difference between dogma and doctrine?
