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.
Chalcedon was called to address serious theological issues threatening the unity of the Church. What grave doctrinal disputes are being addressed by this council?
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.
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.
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.
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.
without a compelling reason
ReplyDeleteI 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.
Unfortunately, it's precisely the issue of the diaspora,autocephaly,etc that's been taken off the table.
DeleteUnfortunately, it's precisely the issue of the diaspora,autocephaly,etc that's been taken off the table.
Deletetaken off the table
ReplyDeleteWhatever the agenda may say, once the bishops get together, you never know what the Holy Spirit may do with them.
Chalcedon was called to address serious theological issues threatening the unity of the Church. What grave doctrinal disputes are being addressed by this council?
ReplyDeleteUnity 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.
ReplyDeleteI 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.
ReplyDeleteI see no compelling reason for this council.
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.
ReplyDeleteAfter 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.
"Antioch and Istanbul, excuse me, Constantinople are in schism."??
ReplyDeleteCan you elaborate, please? I wasn't aware of that. Antioch and Jerusalem are at odds with one another, right?
I misspoke. Jerusalem.
ReplyDeleteThe 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.