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

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.