Yesterday I said:
But, this does not answer the deeper question. How do we know what is truth if our perception of truth is influenced by our culture? And, what mechanisms did God put in place to ensure that the truth would indeed be passed on?
Right up front, I need to tell you that part of the answer is faith. But, that is an accurate statement not only for Christians, but also for every human being on earth. Ultimately, all of us have things that we do not know with certainty, but we have the certainty that reality does form a logical whole. Even though Christians (not just Orthodox, but all Christians) state that our God is not fully knowable, and many–but not all–Orthodox make the claim that our God is fully unknowable, yet we would all still say that reality does exist and is not merely the perception of individuals who are influenced by many factors. More than that, we would say that reality makes sense even if we cannot know all of reality.
OK, now back to less philosophical statements! In the Old Testament, God used patriarchs and prophets–and others, including an ass–to speak truth in his name to the people. He had a most interesting way of confirming who was speaking truth. If you did not listen to the correct prophet–for there were false prophets–you were likely to get sent into exile, or suffer a plague, or some other rather physical confirmation of his word. However, we are not talking about the Old Testament, but about the New. In the New Testament, he used some similar means, but also brought in some other means of confirming truth.
God continued to confirm his word with acts of power in the New Testament. Among some of the recorded acts were the death of Ananias and Sapphira, the striking dumb of a person who opposed Saint Paul, etc. But, rather quickly God began to use another method that was indeed different than what had gone on before, and that was the Ecumenical Council. The first Ecumenical Council is actually recorded in Acts 15, although we do not call it the first one. What was interesting is that rather than a statement coming out of an Apostle, the apostles and elders from all over Christianity are called in. They all have the chance to speak before a decision is made, then the decision is announced by the head of the Church in Jerusalem, who is Saint James–notice that it is NOT Saint Peter, so much for Roman claims. It is what is called a conciliar system of listening to God, for at the end they said that it seemed good not only to them, but also to the Holy Spirit. That is, they were convinced that they were speaking not only as a human body, but as the Body of Christ.
But, remember that I have been writing about culture. One of the ways for God to ensure that truth is reached in partnership with him is to ensure that there are representatives from many cultures, peoples, tribes, and languages, which is what was present already (in part) in Acts 15. That is, if our culture twists our understandings in a certain direction, there is every possibility that a member from another culture may have his/her understanding twisted in a different direction that will cancel out our twist. When there are people from various cultures, the deformations in our theologies that are cause by culture tend to cancel out and leave us open to accurately hearing from God.
This is what happened in the Council of Jerusalem and the Seven Ecumenical Councils. People met from various cultures and were able to hear God accurately. In fact, they were able to hear God so accurately that subsequent Christian cultures have ended up agreeing with six of the seven councils. The Seventh Ecumenical Council has to do with icons and holy images as well as several other matters. I am convinced that Protestants need to repent of their refusal to accept that council, but that is another post. But, let me make a stronger argument. I think that there is a reason why the Orthodox have never ended up having another Ecumenical Council (despite the few Orthodox that try to claim that some council or other is really an ecumenical council). Without formal doctrine on the issue, I am convinced that there is a Spiritual understanding within Orthodoxy that unless a Council includes those multicultural delegates, it may not be truly an Ecumenical Council. But, what does that say about Roman Catholicism?
===MORE TO COME===
To what were the patriarchs referring, in their _Encyclical of the Eastern Patriarchs_, written in 1848, as the ‘Eighth Ecumenical Synod [Council], congregated at Constantinople’?
To something that was not accepted as the Eighth Ecumenical Council by most Orthodox. If you go to the websites of the different jurisdictions, you will see that they do not list an Eighth Ecumenical Council. What those patriarchs referred to was a council held in Constantinople in 879-880, which followed a council held in Constantinople in 869-870.
Roman Catholics recognize the council in 869-870 as the Fourth Council of Constantinople and do consider it the Eighth Ecumenical Council. However, after Patriarch Photius was reinstated, another council was called in Constantinople and it rejected the earlier council. This is considered as the true Fourth Council of Constantinople by the Orthodox. But, note a most important point. There was as yet no split, but now there were competing councils. In effect, though the formal split would not take place for over 100 years more, this begins the process of the split.
As neither council had the full support of the existing Church, the vast majority of Orthodox do not consider either one to be an Ecumenical Council. Which brings up another point. Even Patriarchs, speaking as they did in the letter 1,000 years later, do not have the innate authority to declare a council to be Ecumenical. It takes the united bishops of the Church to make binding declarations. Despite being strongly hierarchical, we are a conciliar Church.
And, ultimately, Father, it takes “reception” by the whole Church (as in Acts 15) to make a council truly ecumenical. This is one reason why Chalcedon is rejected by us so-called “Oriental Orthodox”. Thus, you are correct: the Church is inherently conciliar and synodical, right down to the lowest level.
GRIN, actually, you will certainly enjoy the next post, as it touches on a related subject, which is why the Orthodox have never had another “formal” Ecumenical Council, though they have had several councils which almost unanimously the Orthodox consider binding upon themselves.
On this particular issue, Fr Ernesto, I suspect we will have to ‘agree to disagree’. The Eighth Ecumenical Synod meets the same criteria of the previous seven: called by the (Eastern) Roman emperor, accepted by all five patriarchates, and accepted by all right-believing Christians (by that time — from an Orthodox perspective, sorry FrGregACCA — the Nestorians and the Non-Chalcedonians had separated from the Church). Very well respected Orthodox writers such as Fr John Romanides, Fr George Dragas, and Fr George Metallinos assert this synod was fully and truly ecumenical.
I accept the belief that it was the Jesuit influence in Russia that led to the claim that we Orthodox only have seven Ecumenical Synods. There is nothing magical about the number seven — but it suited the purpose of the Jesuits who were trying to get the Russian Orthodox to submit to the pope in Uniatism.
I also think there is some truth in the idea that many Orthodox have refused to acknowledge more than seven Ecumenical Synods in the hope of facilitating a future reconciliation with the Vatican. (A vain hope, IMO.)
Personally (following Fr John Romanides and others), I think we should forthrightly insist not only on the Eighth Ecumenical Synod of 879-880, but also the Synod of Blachernae (1157) as the Ninth Ecumenical Synod, and the Palamite Synods (1341-1351) together as the Tenth Ecumenical Synod. The teachings of those ecumenical synods are accepted by all Orthodox Christians and thus to proclaim them as ecumenical is entirely consistent with your correct statement that the Church is conciliar.
There are even later synods that, having been held after the fall of the Roman Empire in 1453, were not called by the emperor and thus cannot be ‘ecumenical’, or of the ecumene.
Not to hijack the discussion (my main point above concerns reception which I’m pretty sure all Orthodox recognize, whether septocounciliar or tricounciliar), but the Christological questions aside, what I find ironic about the Byzantine acceptance of Chalcedon is the tremendous boost it gives to the status of the Roman papacy.
Personally, I’m of a so-called Neo-Chalcedonian mindset regarding Chalcedon. I don’t know if you’re familiar with that point of view, but it is definitely NOT pro-Roman papacy!
Well, yes, I guess we will have to agree to disagree. But, I will agree that on the day that our Patriarchs and bishops agree that it is the Eighth Ecumenical Council, so will I. In passing, at least one scholar (Schaaf) argues that the reason for the first acceptance by the Pope is that his own delegates presented him an bowdlerized version of what was approved. When he received the full translation, he promptly rejected it. This is not an empty argument, he researched the letters and documents from that time.
But, there is another danger to the Romanides and others. Our Church is built on the shoulders of the prophets, the apostles, and their successors. By insisting that our hierarchs are wrong, by insisting that the Russians simply submitted to the Jesuits, they undermine the very foundational stones of our Church, which were built upon the only cornerstone, Our Lord Jesus Christ. In fact, I would argue that by insisting that our hierarchs are that wrong, and by insisting that they know the truth, they not only deny the role of our bishops, but also fall into a Protestant error.
But Patriarchs and bishops HAVE agreed that it is the Eighth Ecumenical Synod as is attested in the _Encyclical of the Eastern Patriarchs_ of 1848 (check out all the signatories) so I don’t understand your claim. On the one hand, you reject what they say because ‘[d]espite being strongly hierarchical, we are a conciliar Church’, but then after I refer to widespread support you seem to reverse course and insist on hierarchical authority.
Well, rather simple, since the hierarchs of today do not accept it, and not all hiearchs accepted it, then the Encyclical goes down as a not authoritative statement, every bit as much as other statements that the later Church has judged as not authoritative. For instance, the Council of Florence in the 1430’s was repudiated by later Orthodox. Now if you insist on considering any council as Ecumenical whose approval at the time was by the various patriarchs and bishops, then you must say that the Orthodox are in deep sin by rejecting the re-unification of the Church that was crafted by that “Ecumenical” council. However, if you insist that the Church was right to reject that Council, then you have no argument against the Church rejecting the Patriarchs (and various bishops) and their Encyclical. Again, you are faced with the danger that if you decide to pick and choose, then you are dropping rapidly towards a Protestant view of how the Holy Spirit works.
Thomas: Yes, and neo-chalcedonianism, as expressed by Constantinople II and III (the next two major councils after Chalcedon) indeed expresses the faith of the undivided Church. (Note that, besides the anhypostaticity of Christ’s humanity, it explicitly defines both the relationship of Christ to the Father vis-a-vis his Deity and with us vis-a-vis his humanity in terms of “consubtantiality” or “homoousious”.) It thus corrects Chalcedon itself, and begs the question: how is it that an ecumenical council needs to be corrected? Thus, IMHO, as informed by neo-chalcedonianism, the definition of Chalcedon can be viewed most positively as a defective statement of a Christology common to the Oriental Orthodox, the Byzantine Orthodox, Roman Catholics, and confessional Protestants.
The issue with the papacy has to do with the Chalcedon acclaiming the (nestorianizing) Tome of Leo with the words, “Peter has spoken by Leo!”.
I don’t think ‘Peter has spoken through Leo’ can be properly understood without a recognition that Leo’s statement was thoroughly vetted by a committee first. I believe if the committee had found Leo’s Tome heterodox, it would not have been accepted by the Fathers of Chalcedon. In retrospect, the acclamation was unfortunate, given the tendency of papal apologists to completely ignore the circumstances leading to it and to take the statement altogether out of context.
As a Chalcedonian Orthodox, I must deny the Tome was ‘nestorianizing’, although I can admit its phrasing was not as helpful as it could have been.
I had originally decided not to reply, but your statement:
>>>’Well, rather simple, since the hierarchs of today do not accept it, and not all hiearchs accepted it, then the Encyclical goes down as a not authoritative statement, every bit as much as other statements that the later Church has judged as not authoritative.<<<
has *really* been disturbing me because, by this reasoning, one would have to claim that if at some point in the future, the hierarchs decide not to accept one or more of the first seven ecumenical synods that those would no longer be deemed ecumenical.
I'm done with this thread. I find it too disturbing.
That is a far stretch. Remember that I pointed out that from the beginning that council was not accepted as ecumenical by the entire church, anymore than the “first” eighth council. The council that supposedly reunited the Roman and Orthodox Churches in the 1400’s was also not accepted. And so on. But, no ecumenical council that has been unitedly accepted and has stood longer than 20 years has ever been overthrown. In every case of overthrow, there was disunion over its acceptance.
Thus, the later patriarchs in the 1800’s were the ones being inappropriate. But, you still have your dilemma do you not? Someone is wrong. Either the patriarchs of the 1800’s were wrong or the patriarchs and hiearchs of today. Plus, you have the problem of the original councils in the 800’s. Two separate councils within ten years of each other, one accepted by one side and the other by the other side. And, this was while there was only one united Church.
The Seven Councils will not be overthrown, never fear.