Wednesday, January 27, 2016

Great & Holy Council Moved to Crete - Will Convene on June 19

Via Interfax

God preserve us from bored bishops who decide to convene a Great Council without a compelling reason. We can leave that sort of thing to the Romans.

13 comments:

Chris Jones said...

without a compelling reason

I strongly disagree with the notion that there is "no compelling reason" for a council. Addressing the stunningly uncanonical dog's breakfast that is the Orthodox diaspora is reason enough. Confirming the 1872 condemnation of phyletism would be very helpful, as would sorting out the calendar.

Remember, too, that even though it is called a Great Council, it's not "ecumenical" or authoritative without being received by the whole Church (unlike how it works in Rome). If they screw up, just ignore it.

Michael Commini said...

Unfortunately, it's precisely the issue of the diaspora,autocephaly,etc that's been taken off the table.

Michael Commini said...

Unfortunately, it's precisely the issue of the diaspora,autocephaly,etc that's been taken off the table.

Chris Jones said...

taken off the table

Whatever the agenda may say, once the bishops get together, you never know what the Holy Spirit may do with them.

theguide42 said...

"Unfortunately, it's precisely the issue of the diaspora,autocephaly,etc that's been taken off the table."

Go and read the newly promulgated agenda, please...before commenting.

And John...Captain Negativity, eh? Oh well. I suppose Chalcedon had its naysayers too.

John (Ad Orientem) said...

Chalcedon was called to address serious theological issues threatening the unity of the Church. What grave doctrinal disputes are being addressed by this council?

James the Thickheaded said...

Unity is breached between Antioch and Jerusalem and at best, buffeted between Ukraine and Russia without even beginning to deal with the diaspora. Many would answer ecclessiology might do with a light dusting; others will contend that sex/gender or modernity/secularism lie in wait and "needs more prep" or "not now, not here". Surely there is always more prep that's needed... but the only way to start is to get started. Added words regarding multiple meetings over time are a hat tip. But fairly, some fear one thing or another; others all these things. Many no doubt fear precisely the idea of allowing the Holy Spirit to direct things. "Noooo.... not that!" Our churches have survived and will continue to do so; yet many of our people continue in great need and are fairly under some degree of persecution. Maybe we might wish to gather while we can, give thanks and encouragement not just as individuals or parishes... but as "THE Church". Don't see why that isn't or can't be welcome or enough. As the E.P. himself pleaded (paraphrased), "Not sure why folks seem to want to panic... thinking we just can't wait to be the first in 2,000 years to betray the faith. C'mon... gimmie a little credit." If they're patient... we could see possibilities instead of fearing and (pre-)judging the unknowns. But clearly...your mileage may vary.

theguide42 said...

Besides, don't you think it's good to meet more regularly than every thousand and a half years? It paves the way for catholicity and positive developments. Fear of what will "creep in" is misplaced in my opinion.

I know you used to be Catholic, but I didn't know that you left because you were against Vatican II. Why is that? I've always thought the documents of Vat. II are fairly solid, even if it's reception ended up a strange 60's cocktail.

John (Ad Orientem) said...

I have no objections to meeting now and then. However, Great and Holy Councils are not your normal coffee hour. A lot of the documents from Vatican II are very problematic. Some implicitly or directly contradict the teachings of the pre-concilliar Roman Church. We have never held a great council solely to resolve housekeeping issues. The previous nine have been called to deal with grave theological controversies threatening the unity of the Church.

I see no compelling reason for this council.

The Anti-Gnostic said...

Antioch and Istanbul, excuse me, Constantinople are in schism. Moscow, Antioch and Constantinople are completely at odds on the so-called diaspora which is really the only issue out there. The US Antiochian Archdiocese has said they are not going under anybody else's omophorion in the foreseeable future.

After that, presumably we're all in agreement that abortion is a grave sin, the family is a little Kingdom that must be defended, and we should be good stewards of the environment. I agree with John and others; if there are no heresies to negate, no threat to doctrinal unity, then there's no need for a Council. There are frequent pan-Orthodox meetings otherwise.

Peter Diggs said...

"Antioch and Istanbul, excuse me, Constantinople are in schism."??

Can you elaborate, please? I wasn't aware of that. Antioch and Jerusalem are at odds with one another, right?

theguide42 said...

Fair enough. I still hold that the bishops are wise to call their meeting a Great and Holy Council (not a coffee hour) because it will cause your everyday priest or layperson to take notice and actually obey. A desire for our bishops to not hold council simply because they might say something you disagree with is a very Protestant notion, is it not?

All the Patriarchs are going to be at this council. They will probably release a document afterward that is comparable to Lumen Gentium. I know Lumen Gentium caused many Catholics to join various Catholic splinter groups. I don't really see that happening for us, as we already have such a notion in our ecclesiology. Not to mention, we already have splinter groups (over issues like the calendar and ecumenical dialogue) so the damage has pretty much been done.

The Anti-Gnostic said...

I misspoke. Jerusalem.

The condemnation of phyletism cannot be confirmed, because just about every Patriarchate practices phyletism. If they issue such a proclamation, it would just be shallow rhetoric.