www.byzcath.org Forums Faith & Christian Life Faith & Theology A few questions on Orthodox from a curious Protestant

I am a Protestant (though not for long probably) who is currently reading the Church Fathers and I have seen how they line up with many Orthodox and Catholic beliefs. With that in mind I have
some questions about the Orthodox view of the Church in comparison with the Catholic view,
especially as Protestants who have gone down
the same road as I am going down have either
opted for Roman Catholicism or Orthodoxy.

1) The Orthodox believe that an ecumenical Church council is infallible. How does one know when a council is ecumenical and thus infallible?

2) When was the last ecumenical council, and do you think their might be one in our time? If so, would it include representatives of the Roman Catholic church (Latin) , as did earlier ones before the East/West split?

3) What would it take for the Roman Catholic Church to be receive back into the Orthodox
Church? Would it require renouncing papal
infallibility? Could a ecumenical council then
take place?

4) What role in the Church do the Orthodox think the bishop of Rome should have, especially if Rome ever came back to Orthodox?


5) If two Orthodox bishops were to have a theological dispute an excommunicate each other (the "walling off"), how do the other Orthodox churches decided which one is a heritic (or at least in the wrong) and which one is
orthodox?

6) Is it true that the Orthodox Church accepts divorce-and-remarriage and artifical contraception? If so, is this not against the Church Father`s view on the matter?

I guess most of my questions relate to church authority and the way the Orthodox Church functions in comparison to the Roman Catholic Church. Any comments on would be helpful, and
please don`t hesitiate to correct me if I somehow
have misrepresented Orthodox beliefs here. I
apologize in advance for my ignorance if I did.


In Christ,

BWL

P.S. I am new to this board, so I am not too
sure how it works. If anyone wants to e-mail
me responses my address is bwlong@arches.uga.edu.
I will check this board again as well, but I
live in Germany, so the time difference will
affect when I am able to check.

Dear BWL --

If you're looking for the "organized Church", then you're looking for Catholicism. One Orthodox priest once remarked to me, observing a typically chaotic church luncheon, "if it's organized, then you know its not Orthodox". Organization is *not* our strong suit, and for those for whom it is important to have these kinds of issues "nailed down", Orthodoxy will likely only offer frustration, as the following "answers" to your questions will likely preview.

"1) The Orthodox believe that an ecumenical Church council is infallible. How does one know when a council is ecumenical and thus infallible?"

Orthodoxy views the truth as self-authenticating, and therefore not subject to external criteria. Ecumenical councils are ecumenical councils if they speak the truth truly -- and if they don't, then they are not ecumenical councils, even if they call themselves such. How do you tell the difference? Sometimes it can be hard to tell. If a given council is not received by the Church, that may be a sign that it is not speaking the truth -- but, also, a council that has been received by the Church may nevertheless not be a truthful council. We have faith in the Holy Spirit that in the medium-term the truth will win out in the Church, and this has happened, repeatedly, in the history of the Church, as we can see from the examples of the robber council of Ephesus, the iconoclastic period and the debacle of the Council of Florence. This "system" can lead to much confusion, but for Orthodox having an external a priori criterion that "guarantees" truth is a chimera.

"2) When was the last ecumenical council,"

There is some debate about that. Everyone agrees that there are at least seven. Some Orthodox sources claim that the councils during the time of St. Gregory Palamas are also "ecumenical councils", but the church does not generally refer to them as such. Safest number: 7.

"and do you think their might be one in our time?"

The Orthodox have been planning one for some time, but ISTM that conditions are still not ripe. In any case, a Pan-Orthodox Council would likely *not* be called an "Ecumenical Council", because that term refers to an imperial idea that no longer obtains. IOW, the term "Ecumenical Council" has embedded within it the Byzantine Imperial idea of "oikumene", meaning the entire imperial world -- the Emperor was the "Basileus" of the "oikumene", and it is in the context of that imperial "oikumene" that the term "Ecumenical Council" has its meaning. The phrase "general council" would therefore be a more appropriate term for a council that is intended to be comprehensive in geographic scope, yet not limited by the imperial principle of "oikumene".

"If so, would it include representatives of the Roman Catholic church (Latin) , as did earlier ones before the East/West split?"

That depends. A "reunion council" would, of course, include representatives of each. But my sense is that Orthodoxy needs a council of its own, in the fullness of time, to handle its own issues on its own, in its own way, before any reunion council could be held.

"3) What would it take for the Roman Catholic Church to be receive back into the Orthodox
Church?"

There will always be hotheads, but I would think that dropping the filioque from the Creed, "de-moting" the 2d millenium dogmas to the status Latin doctrines, and openly forswearing claims to direct jurisdiction over the dioceses of the Orthodox Church would create the conditions needed for reconciliation. While there will likely be Orthodox hotheads who insist that every different point of Latin theology is unacceptable, I think that the general trend is moving towards accepting theological doctrinal diversity, while holding fairly firm to dogmatic unity and no universal jurisdiction. I think if that happens, the infallibility issue can be finessed -- ie, it can be reformulated in such a way that it is not effective without the advice and consent of all Patriarchs, or something like that. When formulated without claims to direct universal jurisdiction, it's far less problematic -- at least, so it seems to me.

"4) What role in the Church do the Orthodox think the bishop of Rome should have, especially if Rome ever came back to Orthodox?"

The first bishop of Christendom, the visible sign of Christian unity, the spokesperson for the entire Church, the universal court of appeals for the entire Church. All of these ministries are critical for the Church and should be performed by the Pope -- Orthodox don't disagree with that, generally. Orthodox disagree, however, that in order to be universal spokesman, he also has to have the ability to set doctrine unilaterally. Orthodox disagree, also, that in order to serve as a sign of unity, he must have direct jurisdiction over every diocese in the Church.

"5) If two Orthodox bishops were to have a theological dispute an excommunicate each other (the "walling off"), how do the other Orthodox churches decided which one is a heritic (or at least in the wrong) and which one is
orthodox?"

Holy Tradition. But honestly, this is a theoretical issue at this point. The source of the present separations that exist in the Orthodox world are political more than they are theological. Some have taken a church political issue -- the issue of how Orthodoxy should relate to other non-Orthodox confessions -- and wrapped it in theological garb so as to make it appear as a theological issue -- but it isn't one.

"6) Is it true that the Orthodox Church accepts divorce-and-remarriage"

That misstates the matter. Orthodox will permit a person to be married a second time after due repentance for the serious sin of allowing the first marriage to end -- the second marriage is recognized as an act of mercy and condescension to human needs, and is characterized by a completely different liturgical service than for a first marriage.

"and artifical contraception?"

Again, an overstatement. Some Orthodox do not view the use of non-abortificient methods of contraception by married couples for the purposes of spacing children or limiting the number of children as being sinful. All Orthodox agree that abortificent means of contraception are morally unacceptable, as is the use of any form of contraception by anyone other than married couples, as is the use of any form of contraception by married couples for the purpose of avoiding children altogether. Some Orthodox follow the stricter view articulated by the Roman Catholics, whereby any form of contraception (including so-called "Natural Family Planning"), if used for the purpose of avoiding pregnancy, is morally unacceptable.

"If so, is this not against the Church Father`s view on the matter?"

There is a debate about that. One good reference for the more lenient Orthodox view is Fr, Meyendorff's "Marriage: An Orthodox Perspective", which addresses both the issues of divorce and contraception use by married persons. Another good resource is the book written by Gk Orth. theologial Fr. Stanley Harakas containining "455 questions and answers" -- which addresses both of these issues in a balanced way.

Brendan

Dear bwlong,

Welcome to this Forum and I wanted to take a stab at your excellent questions from my own Eastern Catholic point of view.

1) Both Orthodox and Catholic Churches believe that an ecumenical Council, comprised of and/or representing the Church universal, is a way in which the Holy Spirit unerringly teaches the faithful of Christ's flock. The decisions of such a Council are to be accepted by the Church when they have the consent of its Chief Pastors, the Patriarchs.

2) For Catholics, the last ecumenical Council was Vatican II that ended in 1965. For Orthodox, the last Council was the Seventh Council in the 8th century. For Oriental Orthodox, the last Council was the Third Council.

2b) Again, I think you are speaking from the Eastern Orthodox perspective, and so, yes, the Orthodox have been planning another Council (as one Orthodox friend told me, "forever.") Perhaps the next Council could be a reunion Council with the Catholic Church participating. In that case, the main organizer for that Council will be the Holy Spirit of God!

3) The term "Orthodoxy" is really one that is used by both Catholic and Orthodox Churches today. "Orthodox Catholic" is the universal title used by both East and West before the break that was finally realized, I believe, with the Sack of Constantinople. Orthodox theologian John Meyendorff (+memory eternal!) believed that an ecumenical Council between East and West could be held without any doctrinal change at first. RC doctrines that developed following the split could be "re-presented" at that Council for discussion and even for possible acceptance by the universal Church, East and West, should they decide to reunite. Ultimately, anything can happen at such a Council. As for what is "in keeping with the Fathers" that too is up to the Council to decide.

4)In a situation of reunion with East and West, Rome would not "come back" to anyone and neither would the Orthodox understand reunion as a submission to Rome. Orthodox theologians have said that Rome can and should have a Primacy of Honour, symbol of unity and all that, as obtained prior to the split and something that would be normally in focus during an ecumenical Council, but that, otherwise, the Patriarchates would be directly responsible for governing their own affairs.

5)In the case of bishops of a given Patriarchate, the Patriarch would certainly judge the case. The Ecumenical Patriarch of Constantinople can be called in or could get involved if a serious matter of the faith is at stake. The EP of Constantinople has excommunicated another Patriarch previously and then readmitted him into Communion.

6) The Eastern Church, even before the split of East and West, allowed divorce or annulment and remarriage, something decided by bishops on a case by case situation. The unbroken marital bond is always certainly the ideal, but provision was made for human weakness. The Roman Catholic church holds to this ideal as well, but allows for annulments, thousands in fact, and remarriage following this. I don't know about you, but I think these annulments are "church divorce by another name."

As for artifical contraception, this whole area of morality is something that was never pronounced on "infallibly" by anyone, apart from general moral principles. Brendan's sources in this respect are excellent, as they always are! Certainly, the current practice of the Orthodox Church does not go against the body of Patristic thinking along these lines. The vast majority of RC's around the world do practice artificial contraception while many RC theologians and priests in confession often tend to "look the other way" in this respect.

Personally, I find the theological and moral perspectives of Orthodoxy to be not only very scripturally and patristically based, but also reflecting the Fathers' deep understanding of human and social psychology.

Alex

Of course, not everyone agrees that there were seven...some of us, while not questioning the orthodoxy of everything from Chalcedon on, only recognise the First Three Ecumenical Councils. But some might have bad things to say about us on that account. :p

Happy Friday!

Dear Alex,

Is such a blanket statement about all Catholics recognising Vatican II as an Ecumenical Council proper in light of the Eastern Catholics? Or do they too recognise V II as an E.C., and I just misunderstood things?

Mor --

I wasn't intending to cast stones at the pre-Chalcedonian Orthodox Churches -- my sense is that LBW's questions related to the Chalcedonian Orthodox Churches. I think that the pre-Chalcedonian and Chalcedonian Orthodox share the same faith in substance, regardless of the pragmatic issue currently under consideration regarding what Chalcedonian Orthodox consider the 4th, 5th, 6th and 7th E.C.'s.

For the time being, I would say that Eastern Catholics accept the ecumenicity of VII. There are Eastern Catholics who would deny that -- even Archbishop Elias (Zoghby) of the Melkites seems to think that this was yet another General Council of the West -- but *officially*, at least, all of Catholicism acknowledges VII as an "Ecumenical Council".

Brendan

Brendan

[ 02-15-2002: Message edited by: Brendan ]

Dear Catholicos,

I think that all Eastern Catholics recognize Vatican II as an ecumenical Council and there was representation there from all Eastern Churches.

It could be that some Particular Churches might name it differently, much like the Scots, like our Angela, naming Queen Elizabeth "the First" of Scotland.

But I wouldn't know about that. I am, after all, a simple Ukrainian . . .

How was last night?

Alex

Here's my point of view:

I am an Eastern Catholic.

I believe in 7 fully ecuemenical councils, 1 quasi ecumenical council (The Photian Council of 879/880 where reunion occured), and I place 2 local councils in the east at high regard: Blacharnae 1285 which, while not officially ecumenical, has been received by the Orthodox as the official teaching on the Holy Spirit's procession in the essence from the Father alone while from Father and Son in energies (a theologically deep book which explains this is: "Crisis in Byzantium: the Filioque Controversy in the Patriarchate of Gregory II of Cyprus" by Aristeides Papadakis), and the Hesychast Synods of the 1340's.

I think we may have moved beyond the age of councils. Read the chapter on "What is an Ecumenical Council" in John Meyendorff's "Living Tradition" to see what I mean. Really, could we not move into a time when formal/informal consultation between the bishops results in better and more comprehensive decisions than in a formal council? I don't know; I'm asking this question.

If you are thinking Catholicism vs. Orthodoxy, I don't know: I am Catholic, and I love my Eastern Catholic parish; but I long to be in union with World Orthodoxy.... Bottom line: find a community where you are comfortable, and worship there. If its worship and service life jives with what you are reading for private spiritual edification, join up. What I mean is, if you are going to an Orthodox parish but read St. Therese of Liseux, St. Teresa of Avila, St. Ignatius Loyola, and Thomas Merton, you may wish to reconsider joining the Latin Church. If you are going Latin (Roman Catholic) and read Metropolitan Hierotheos of Nafpaktos (www.pelagia.org [pelagia.org]), Fr. Meyendorff, Schmemann, Lossky, and Florovsky, you may want to consider being Orthodox instead. If you are Byzantine Catholic (Eastern Catholic) and reading a bit of both, maybe you should be EC, but if you are reading exclusively Orthodox sources and your pastor keeps talking about purgatory and indulgences, you may want to be Orthodox.

The reason for this long winded post is that I think you need to pray, fast, read the spiritual writers, and worship in a local community where you feel at home. i don't want to sound relativistic, as I know as a Protestant you are trying to get away from that (I was one too). BUT Catholic and Orthodox issues are so complicated, that unless what you are reading and praying matches what you are doing on Sunday, you will drive yourself nuts.

anastasios

Dear Alex,

Last night? Haha, rather dull...there's not too much you can do on Valentine's day if your valentine is a couple hundred miles away. I hope you fared better.

and Dear Brendan,

I know you weren't throwing stones...hence the :p face. My remark was made more for the sake of clarity, as well as further elucidating the fact that we're not an organised bunch. If the question was intended for the Chalcedonians, that's fine, and I agree with your answers...I guess I just wanted to spike the punch bowl a bit, make things more interesting.

College kids...hmph!

[ 02-15-2002: Message edited by: anastasios ]

Dear Anastasios,

An excellent outline and advice!

From the common Catholic-Orthodox point of view, the first Seven Councils are those that they were present at and share as Ecumenical Councils.

All other Catholic and Orthodox Councils could be seen as "Local" or "Regional."

There is nothing wrong with viewing Councils in such a manner, since both Churches have, historically, taken decisions from local Councils and have rendered them universal for their jurisdictions worldwide.

On the other hand, the issue of the 8th Council where St Photios is concerned could be declared Ecumenical by both sides at a future Council of reunion, as John Meyendorff had suggested. Other Councils, including the Hesychast one, could likewise be so declared.

From the standpoint of the Oriental Orthodox, they could ostensibly acknowledge the Orthodoxy of the other four Ecumenical Councils, as their theologians already do.

They have resisted so doing until now on the grounds that they were not present at them or that the reason for calling them had to do with issues that were not "Ecumenical" such as the 7th Council summoned to defend the use of Icons, an issue that was really a local one of the Byzantine Empire and that did not affect the Oriental Churches at all.

But they could, upon reunion, declare even these Councils "Ecumenical" within the context of a reunion Council, even though they would never have to liturgically commemorate them, as they do the Three Councils.

Ultimately, the Churches borrow so much from local and regional Councils that it is sometimes difficult to understand the real point of difference between them and the Ecumenical Councils.

How's that, Catholicos Mor Ephrem?

Alex

Amen to anastasios. Very good presentation of Catholic belief.

K.

[ 02-15-2002: Message edited by: Kurt ]

Hello:


The Catholic Church also believes this with the qualification that only definitive definitions regarding faith or morals are considered infallible.

Disciplinary issues and other declarations from Ecumenical Councils, while binding, are not considered infallible and are subject to further revision and reform.


The Orthodox usually tell that a Council is Ecumenical when all Orthodox bishops were invited and when the results are received as Ecumenical by the entire Universal Church. While the former is easily measured, I don't see any practical way to gauge the later.

Perhaps that is the reason why the Orthodox Church has never had an Ecumenical Council after its separation from Rome.

For us Catholics, it's far easier: An Ecumenical Council is called by the Pope, it is conducted under the authority of the Pope (although usually not in person but through legates) and its proceedings are officially proclaimed by the Pope.


The Orthodox believe that Nicea-II was the 7th and last Ecumenical Council. I don't think there will be an Orthodox Ecumenical Council anytime soon, but if there was, the Catholic Church (Latin or otherwise) would probably not be required or even invited to attend.

The Orthodox have the additional problem of who has the right to call an Ecumenical Council. If the Orthodox Primus-Inter-Pares, the Ecumenical Patriarch of Constantinople called one, it means sure war with the Patriarch of Moscow. If the Patriarch of Moscow called for one, many will see this as an usurpation of functions and probably would consider the call not canonical.

A third option would be the Orthodox Roman Emperor but, alas, we no longer have one (although there is an Albanian family that has a fairly credible claim to the Imperial Throne, you never know).

The Catholic Church, on the other hand, has celebrated dozens of Ecumenical Councils after the separation, the most recent one being Vatican-II in the 1960's.

Which one do you think is the Conciliar Church?


Hold it there! We don't want to be "received back" into Orthodoxy much in the same way as we don't want to receive back the Orthodox into Catholicism.

Our search for full communion is currently grounded on the principle of Sister Churches (not between Catholicism and Orthodoxy, but rather between particular Catholic churches and particular Orthodox churches).


The Catholic Church holds papal infallibility, as defined by the First Vatican Ecumenical Council to be a divinely revealed dogma. In itself, the doctrine is infallible, irreformable and irrenouncable. Your question becomes purely academic. It's not happening.


The Orthodox believe that an Orthodox Bishop of Rome should be First-Among-Equals, which in plain English means that his name comes first in whatever list of Orthodox Hierarchs is composed for whatever purpose...

...and absolutely nothing more. If you don't believe me, you can ask the Ecumenical Patriarch, which currently holds this "office" in the Orthodox Church.


Good Question! I think that the rank of the bishops would be a factor. If they belong to the same jurisdiction, then the position of the jurisdiction's canonical head and holy synod would be a factor. If they belong to different jurisdictions then chances are that communion between those jurisdictions will also be broken, so the question becomes which jurisdiction you wish to remain in comunion with.

And I am not sure there are enough canonical provisions to help bishops to decide for every possible scenario. Given the degree of autonomy that each Orthodox bishop is supposed to have, I wouldn't be surprised if Executive Decision (sometimes nothing more than a fancy name for coin-flipping) is allowed.

Nasty stuff. Schism is bad, no matter where you are.


Yes and no on both!

Divorce and remarriage are not lawfully accepted, but are economically tolerated. Artificial contraception is not recommended, but is not strongly condemned as in the Catholic Church. Usually the Orthodox pastor and ultimately each particular Orthodox couple can decide one way or another.

And as usual, this changes from jurisdiction to jurisdiction.

As to how all this relates to the Fathers, well, nobody really knows. Just as Scripture, the Fathers require some interpretation and there is no single Orthodox hierarch or organism that has the last word regarding Scriptural or Patristic interpretation.

Let us put it this way. With the notable exceptions of:

1. The doctrines defined by the first 7 Ecumenical Council.

and

2. The doctrine of Papal authority.

You'll have a very hard time finding an official Pan-Orthodox position on anything.


Yes, and they are very good questions. I hope you get enough good answers.


Now there is an interesting notion!

God bless you in your pilgrimage to Truth.

Shalom,
Memo.

Memo,

Your comments about Orthodoxy are very interesting, even though they are---for the most part---highly speculative.

There is such a thing as the "Orthodox concensus" or ecumenical agreement on what constitutes the pillars of Orthodoxy.

In reality the Orthodox have not suffered the internal or theological "schisms" and heresies that have plagued the Roman Catholic Church during the 20th and 21st centuries; a plague that still infects your church.

Even Roman Catholic theologians admit to that fact and admire the Orthodox for their theological integrity.

The search for the Truth requires attention to the details and not just relying on tendentious and highly prejudiced half-truths.

Speaking to a priest--one Catholic and one Orthodox--would be the common sense approach to embarking on a life-changing pilgrimage.

Ephraim