www.byzcath.org Forums General Discussions Town Hall Will the first-ever Orthodox council occur this year?

Will the first-ever Orthodox council occur this year? We'll know soon.

By Phil Lawler | Catholic Culture | Jan 18, 2016

Since the Great Schism, the Roman Catholic Church has held 13 ecumenical councils; the Orthodox churches have held: none. That failure to arrange a worldwide gathering, for nearly a millennium, is a major failure for Orthodoxy. It is an indication that the Orthodox world has been troubled by nationalism and caesaropapism. Or to put it differently, it is a powerful argument that the Orthodox Church is not universal. In his book The Russian Church and the Papacy, the great Russian theologian Vladimir Soloviev cites the failure to convene an Orthodox council as one of the signs that the Church of Rome is the one true Church.

Seen against that background, the plans for a pan-Orthodox council—the first-ever universal council of leaders in the Orthodox world—is a very big story. Consequently, the serious questions about whether such a council will actually take place are also very big stories—even if they are not much noticed in the West.

In that context, take careful note of the statement released on January 18 by the Ecumenical Patriarchate of Constantinople, about a meeting of Orthodox primates to be held next week in Geneva. Nearly all the primates of the Orthodox world are expected to attend, and the agenda will be the “preparation” for the pan-Orthodox council that is tentatively planned for later this year.

In this case “preparation” does not mean merely settling the logistical details. The Orthodox primates have agreed that their council can take place only if they have reached essential agreement on all the crucial issues before they meet. The meeting that will take place in Geneva, then, might well decide the question of whether or not a pan-Orthodox council is possible.

- See more at: http://www.catholicculture.org/commentary/otn.cfm?id=1132#sthash.Th16Df4t.dpuf

The fact that there have been no Orthodox councils is not necessarily a bad thing. Councils in the west have created upheaval, dissension and outright schism, the last one being a good example of that. Maybe you should count your blessings.

Charles, you speak the truth!

What I don't understand is how some RC's, like this fellow, who just don't get what Vatican II has said about the Christian East.

Basically, he and others like him measure how "true" the Orthodox East is by how closely it approximates the bureaucracy and centralization of the Catholic West together with the later "ecumenical councils" convened by Rome.

One thing that Rome has yet to iron out is how "ecumenical" those later councils truly are - and if even they can be called such at all - given the historic criteria for establishing a council as ecumenical.

Were all these councils convoked to address a heresy affecting the Church? (You are right, I'm saying not.) And if the Orthodox East is what Rome today says it is (including the implications of the Balamand statement) then how can those "later Latin councils" be deemed "ecumenical" given that the East did not participate in them? The two so-called union councils of Lyons and Florence were, in a word, disastrous and continue to have a negative impact on contemporary Roman-Orthodox relations.

In addition, the controversy over what really is the "8th Ecumenical Council" in the West (and in the East as well) just won't go away. As we know, Rome originally accepted that Council that exonerated St Photios the Great and condemned the Filioque (Charles, it is always important not to let one's bias show too much when discussing these matters . . .). Then it declared that council null and void and historically referred to it as the "Pseudo-synod of Photius." In our days, along came Fr. Francis Dvornik to discuss this from an RC point of view . . .

As for nationalism - it's not like nationalism doesn't exist in Roman Catholic churches . . . let's get a grip on!

You mean St John Paul II wasn't a Polish patriot? You mean he didn't remove Poland from any Vatican consideration of Ostpolitik? One should read his sermon on the canonization of the Polish Carmelite St Raphael Kalinowski . . . I'm NOT saying that any of that is bad!! Just that here we have another North American Catholic who hasn't the faintest idea of what Catholicism looks like outside his American parochial orbit!

As an Eastern Catholic, I feel responsible for this to some extent, so I would like to offer an apology to our Orthodox brothers and sisters for this nonsense - beginning with Alice!

Alex

It's important to consider "historic criteria" so long as historians etc. are not making the final judgment. Every participant on this forum can raise the question of what makes a council ecumenical and even what that means in terms of binding decrees of various levels of doctrine and discipline. What should not be done is to substitute the opinion of others -- e.g. the council did not combat heresy, therefore, can't be ecumenical -- as a certain necessary or sufficient factor. The Catholic Church should certainly appraise its understanding of the way it gathers for solemn assembly. And when it voices that understanding it should be accorded the right to its own evaluation in proper measure, even and especially against the often flimsy, dated, undocumented, find-some-theologian/historian-that suits-my-purpose pronouncements on the matter. Here are some appraisals actually voiced in formal, official venues that should be given proper consideration and awareness in formulating a conclusion. They are from a prior, related thread, Re: First Seven Councils.

Here are words, like bookends, that bracket the "1962 synod commonly referred to as Vatican II" -- objective words where indeed "results speak for themselves." [below emphasis added]

On October 11, 1962, the first day of the Council, Pope John delivered this address in St. Peter's Basilica.


POPE PAUL VI'S CLOSING SPEECH AND MESSAGES FOR VATICAN COUNCIL II DECEMBER 8, 1965


APOSTOLIC BRIEF "IN SPIRITU SANCTO' FOR THE CLOSING OF THE COUNCIL

DECEMBER 8, 1965 read at the closing ceremonies of Dec. 8 by Archbishop Pericle Felici, general secretary of the council.

Dear Father Deacon,

Certainly, this is all about debate and historians do not, nor can, have the final word on any of this.

At the same time, you seem to have a very Roman Catholic perspective which is OK if one is Roman Catholic . . .

There have been voices in the West that have gone so far as to suggest that the 14 later Latin Councils might be one day considered Local rather than Ecumenical for a number of reasons (and not only based on the one you gave). That is something for the competent Church authorities to decide in future, when and even if they do.

Also, there can be no doubt that the universal Latin Church has had 21 Ecumenical Councils as such. One point of discussion could also be to what extent the Latin Church (which is too often, in these discussions, considered to be the "Catholic Church" alone - another debate) would need to one day, and formally, extend its self-understanding to disassociate the notion of the "Particular Latin Catholic Church" from that of the "Universal Catholic Church" - and the beginning point of debate on this would be to show how the two could be seen to have been confused in recent RC history - another unfortunate consequence of the parting of the ways with the Eastern Churches.

Alex

Every time the Latins have a council, they think it is ecumenical. It is interesting that to a large chunk of the apostolic church, it isn't. It is a case of, "just because you say it doesn't make it so."

Actually it was you having so much to say about Rome, asking speaking of Rome's, it seems, confusion,not me. I just let the Popes speak for themselves and do the ironing that you said was needed. Documented quotes -- you can be east, west, north or south to do that legitimately, without bias. Everyone is a voice. I just presented the voice of a, some would say the most, competent authority. An oxymoron. No such thing. Yes, in the sense nuanced by VCII the Catholic Church considers itself THE '"Catholic Church" alone.' But from what I've read and understand, so do the Orthodox think so of themselves, perhaps even more so.

And of course not "every time" but you have made my point that, at least in the example I gave, "the Latins" certainly consider it ecumenical, along with 20 others. Can this change? We will have to await an actual authoritative answer. This is true. It is also true that you can't have a party because I wouldn't come to it doesn't work either.

Then party on, dude! Or at least, the Latins can.

Dear Father Deacon,

If you want to catch people up on their words, two can play at that game (although it is unbecoming for you to do that as an albeit inactive Deacon) .

Yes, I brought up the matter of Rome - but by trying to bring in the Eastern perspective (what was your point about anyway then?). My point is that you don't appreciate the Eastern perspective and the official title of the Orthodox Church includes "Orthodox Catholic" - I like it myself.

We know all about the quotes you bring up and as for bias - are you kidding? So if someone wants to debate and discuss this issue (what is this Forum for anyway?), you come back with dogmatic teachings to quell the debate? That is what you consider to be your contribution, Reverend Father Deacon?

I don't like arguing with a Reverend Father Deacon, active or otherwise, because it will get me in trouble with the Administrator. So you have me at a disadvantage.

If you feel I'm being unfaithful to the Teaching Magisterium of the Holy Roman Church . . . again, this forum is for debating. I happen to appreciate the Orthodox perspectives here (yes, Recluse and Alice are wondering about me). But the Administrator here appreciates them too!

Anyway, I submit to the judgement of the Holy Roman Church in this matter and, following your directive, urge everyone else here to do the same . . . if they know what's good for them . . .

But I feel that I've offended you and the Holy Roman Church by even bringing these points up.

I've been looking for a legitimate reason to leave this forum for good and you've given it to me now. I wish you and everyone here the very best as I move on to a place which isn't so Papal as here! (I'm kidding, the Administrator here readily sings in Orthodox parishes . . .).

But I go nonetheless. All the best to everyone!

Alex

Alex, please don't become a deacon! My experience with them is that while most are good, the diaconate is often the last refuge of the most obnoxious converts. Stay free, argumentative, and unadorned with liturgical finery. We like you as you are.

This is actually a quote, for which you have failed to give credit: Arius (circa AD 325).

Nah, he probably said something similar in very stilted Latin.

I was sure it was from Bill & Ted's Excellent Adventure (1989.

Charles, it was among my most blessed experiences to have come to know you here. You are ... YOU. I thank God for that!

I've lost my appetite for controversy and sparring here. My attitude now is - WHATEVER!

All the best to you sir!

Alex

Alex, don't take any of this that seriously. I pay zero attention to the controversy and sparring here - or anywhere else. Life is short, enjoy it. What you can't change, pray over and laugh about. Too many, who probably don't know who they are, suffer from the old Latin affliction, "tighticus panticus." It causes, crankiness, intolerance, fanaticism, and a host of afflictions far worse.

"This fellow" [i.e., Phil Lawler] should know something about Vatican II and the Christian East, having been a Catholic journalist for more than 30 years, editing several Catholic magazines, writing eight books, and founding of Catholic World News, where he is the news director and lead analyst at CatholicCulture.org. Also, his father, Protodeacon Paul Lawler (of beloved memory) was among the first of the permanent deacons to be ordained for the Melkite Eparchy in the U.S., secretary to the late Eparch, Archbishop Joseph Tawil (also of beloved memory), and eparchial chancellor for many years.

Since 1967 the Catholic Church has had fifteen councils at the Vatican of bishops from throughout the world and has not called any of them "ecumenical" but rather "assemblies (ordinary [or] extraordinary)" of the Synod of Bishops - the latest being last year.

Tomassus!

I was beginning to think you weren't a real poster!

I'm sure Phil is a great journalist - but a journalist nevertheless

As for his father being a deacon, please see Charles' post above!

No one is questioning his journalistic abilities - only his ability to comprehend Eastern Orthodox ecclesiology within a comparative framework with that of the RC West.

And his use of terminology is interesting. So this, the upcoming Council, would be the first-ever Orthodox Council?

One could take that to mean that the RC Councils may have been ecumenical, but not really "Orthodox?"

Or, much more seriously by way of silly implication, does that great journalist with the Melkite Deacon father truly believe the Orthodox Eastern Churches weren't present or had no real contribution in the first great Seven Ecumenical Councils? Did they just become "Orthodox" after 1054?

In these matters, it is best to rely on the best research and writings of the Orthodox-RC ecumenical commissions which are composed of trained theologians as opposed to great journalists . . .

Alex

OK Charles, all points well taken! And no liturgical finery for me - although I'm into scapulars ....

But those are under the shirt . . .

Alex

I even wear scapulars. Those Carmelites were eastern first, you know.

Not to mention several pan-Orthodox councils we've held since then, such as the Fifth Council of Constantinople, Synods of Jassy and Jerusalem, etc.

In light of these posts how is one to interpret this post [emphasis added throughout]?
Here's what I say. The "great journalist with the Melkite Deacon father," unlike the above posters, is at least cognizant of history and the difference between o-and-O-rthodox and their usage:

Orthodoxy [en.wikipedia.org]

Note, however, that catholic is a "mark" of the Church, Four Marks of the Church [en.wikipedia.org], orthodox is not. The theological and dogmatic scope of catholic is Creedal: "one, holy, catholic, and apostolic Church."

[I just love opportunities like this for giving quotes and references and dogma, and ... facts.]

Well, let's see, there are Bulgarian Orthodox, Syrian Orthodox, Greek Orthodox, Russian Orthodox, and a host of others. They all consider themselves Catholic, too. Calling one's church
Roman "Catholic" doesn't convey ownership of the term. What I also found interesting, is that some segments of Roman Catholicism don't get along any better than some Orthodox churches. The more things change, the more they stay the same.

I believe that is what the quote is saying.

A similarity between the two at last.

I'm not sure I see your point, AJK. The fact is that the Orthodox Church has held pan-Orthodox councils well after 1054. The Palamite synods are often referred to as an ecumenical council. So even distinguishing small-o and big-O orthodoxy, the statement that this is "the first ever Orthodox council" is demonstrably false. It's either ignorant or deliberately polemical.

I see your point. Were the "Palamite synods" an ecumenical council (the 9th ?).? Has the term "pan-Orthodox" been used in the (more distant) past, in common usage?

For my post/objection, read your post in conjunction with and commentary on and agreement with the post that you quoted. While the thread is entitled "Will the first-ever Orthodox council occur this year?", please note it is a question, not a statement; also, the person referred to as "that great journalist with the Melkite Deacon father" [an ad homminun and one of the several unbecoming remarks that have been made (in particular about the diaconate) in this thread] actually used different and more nuanced words (see initial post of the thread):
I'm more intrigued by this remark by Lawler:

Yes. They were convened by the emperor, included bishops from all the ancient patriarchates, and were universally accepted in the Orthodox Church.

After the fall of the empire, another pan-Orthodox council (which called itself ecumenical) was convened in 1482 to repudiate the Florence council. Other such councils were held at Jassy (1642) and Jerusalem (1672), chiefly aimed at Calvinism.



I don't know, but what really matters is that such councils happened and showed the ancient Orthodox patriarchates speaking in a united voice.



Please.

So both Catholic and Orthodox have held ecumenical councils separate from each other, that is, not including actual participation. That is not the view ordinarily voiced or understood or presumed on this forum.


OK but perhaps then Lawler (and many others) could be given a little latitude in thinking pan-Orthodox as a new approach. Also, why not just call it Ecumenical since there have already been others in the Orthodox communion as you have noted previously?


You or I can utter words of gold and the world will hardly notice or care. Soloviev is a voice with a history and a platform (and probably even a following). Like him or not, agree with him or disagree, but don't just dismiss the point, give us some gold to ponder instead.

Thank you for posting that. Ever since I first saw this thread I've been wondering how anyone thinks that this council (assuming that it will happen) will be the "first".

Again, those words were within a question not a statement, and as the title of the thread. Like a headline it can be misleading, giving a wrong impression; like a headline it must be evaluated in conjunction with the initial post.

To avoid any confusion, what are the Orthodox calling this assembly, officially? Is it considered an Ecumenical Council? Will it be referred to as such, if it is, as Popes John XXII and Paul VI did for Vatican II?

They're calling it a "Great and Holy Council." Myself, I think "ecumenical" is an anachronism since there is no Roman empire anymore.

According to the Office of the Ecumenical Patriarch: The Holy and Great Council.

An update from Phil Lawler on an update from the MP:

Earlier this week I wrote about the prospects for a pan-Orthodox council: an unprecedented meeting of all the world’s Orthodox churches. Whether the ambitious plan for such a meeting is successful could be decided by a preparatory session next week, and it’s noteworthy that Russian Orthodox Patriarch Kirill himself will be attending that session. Perhaps even more noteworthy (for those who are following closely), the delegation from Moscow will include Metropolitan Onufry of Kiev, who has expressed serious misgivings about the pan-Orthodox council. The participation of the Russian Orthodox Church—by far the largest of the world’s Orthodox bodies—is critical to the success of any worldwide Orthodox council. Next week’s meeting could be a make-or-break session. - See more at: http://www.catholicculture.org/commentary/the-city-gates.cfm?id=1220#sthash.S3KOx3QL.dpuf

HIS HOLINESS PATRIARCH KIRILL TO TAKE PART IN SYNAXIS OF PRIMATES OF THE ORTHODOX CHURCHES IN CHAMBÉSY

Press Service of the Patriarch of Moscow and All Russia
20.01.2016
https://mospat.ru/en/2016/01/20/news126983/

In compliance with a pan-Orthodox decision, the Synaxis of the Primates and representatives of all Local Orthodox Churches will begin its work at the Orthodox Centre of the Patriarchate of Constantinople in Chambésy, Switzerland, on 22 January 2016. The participants in the week-long meeting will discuss the preparation of the Pan-Orthodox Council.

The delegation of the Russian Orthodox Church will include His Beatitude Metropolitan Onufry of Kiev and All Ukraine; Metropolitan Hilarion of Volokolamsk, chairman of the Moscow Patriarchate’s Department for External Church Relations; and archpriest Nikolai Balashov, DECR vice-chairman.

The Russian Orthodox Church has always taken and continues to take an active part in the Pre-Council process, notwithstanding a number of difficulties pertaining to the preparation of the Pan-Orthodox Council. Since the Primate of the Russian Orthodox Church needs to participate personally in the Synaxis over the whole period of its work, His Holiness Patriarch Kirill of Moscow and All Russia will not be able to lead the opening ceremony of the Christmas Readings on January 25.

His Holiness Patriarch Kirill is expected to take part in the Christmas parliamentary meetings, due to be held at the Council of the Federation on January 29.

On January 25, the opening day of the Christmas Readings, Metropolitan Juvenaly of Krutitsy and Kolomna will officiate at the Divine Liturgy in the Cathedral of Christ the Saviour in Moscow upon the blessing of His Holiness Patriarch Kirill.

The Primate of the Russian Orthodox Church conveys his blessing to all the participants in the Christmas Readings, a public forum of Church-wide importance.

The following link from another thread expresses that other view.

That's a historically untenable position- if we were to take it seriously, we would have to rule out any councils as ecumenical that did not include both sides of a schism. In that case the last ecumenical council was Ephesus (or perhaps even Constantinople I). I am not aware of any respected Orthodox theologian who would consider the presence of Rome today to be essential for an ecumenical council.

In any case the main argument from the Catholic side seems to be, "Look, those Orthodox can't make any united dogmatic decisions apart from Rome." Whether one considers the Palamite synods to be ecumenical or something else, they and subsequent councils at Jassy, Jerusalem, etc. disprove that argument.

Finally, I don't think the terminology of "ecumenical councils" is very important. A council doesn't need this label to be authoritative or catholic. The fact is that "ecumenical" is tied to the ecumene, ie the Roman Empire which no longer exists. Unfortunately too much of our ecclesial politics is hung up on the residue of dead empires.

These are well-argued points; not unexpectedly there are other, differing opinions, some being very prevalent though not necessarily correct. May the true explanation prevail.

The "true" explanation would depend on whether you are Catholic or Orthodox.

Both consider theirs to be the true explanation.

Alex

Both explanations were Orthodox.

Another Orthodox view, differently nuanced, by John Chryssavgis, Archdeacon and theological adviser to Ecumenical Patriarch Bartholomew. ON THE GREAT COUNCIL OF THE ORTHODOX CHURCH [risu.org.ua]

My point is that one's Ecclesial loyalty will colour one's view of. . . everything.

There is a lot that both sides hold in common, as we know. That doesn't prevent them from being separated and having different views on what that separation means.

Alex

As we know, even Local Councils in the Orthodox Church can affirm canons and teachings that become "universal" within Orthodoxy. The so-called "Ninth Ecumenical Council" on hesychasm and St Gregory Palamas is a case in point. Some Churches accept it as an Ecumenical Council, others, probably the majority, do not. That doesn't prevent all of Orthodoxy from universally adopting its teachings and canons.

Alex

If I understand you Alex, here you have created the sides, as Catholic and Orthodox, that in fact do not exist in the stated context. Both viewpoints are from Orthodox not Catholic proponents.

Father Deacon,

Actually, you don't understand me and it was not my intention to do what you said you thought I did.

Alex

"I know that you believe that you understood what you think I said, but I am not sure you realize that what you heard is not what I meant."

Robert McCloskey, State Department spokesman (attributed)

Dear Rev. Fr. Deacon,

You are a man of obvious great intellectual, cultural and spiritual depth!

That is a brilliant statement!

Forgive me a sinner at the beginning of the Gregorian Lent!

Love you!

Alex

I haven't heard or read anything about the Orthodox Church in America being invited to the preparations or to this Great Council. Does anyone know anything about this? And, if not, what does that say about her place in the Orthodox world? The OCA is considered canonical, so why is she not represented?

Bob