Replies

Although the resolution of the so-called Eight Council was approved by the Pope, and St. Photius restored and Filioque thrown out, the Church defines itself as being the Church with the doctrine as explained by the first Seven Councils. The last council was simply too divisive and disruptive of Christian unity to accept as an achievement.

I disagree with gbcdoj on his assertion that all five patriarchs had to agree for the councils to be valid. Usually the Pope would sin for the Church, but the Emperor was the law behind it. Councils sometimes passed canons that were not to pope's liking, and some refused to sign them. The Councils were passed regardless and usually another pope would, under sometimes very obvious pressure and threats, agree to with the Emperor and the Council and sign it.

Kolokotrinis, the non-Orthodox are not invited to take the Eucharist. If the priest doesn't recognize someone he will specifically ask if that person is Orthodox before giving the Eucharist.

I have also said in one of my previous posts that to the orthodox, the Catholics were the first Protestants. It's a relational not judgmental statement.

Vicomte, we are a hairline apart but that hairline is a narrow, yet deep, deep canyon.

I disagree with gbcdoj on his assertion that all five patriarchs had to agree for the councils to be valid. Usually the Pope would sin for the Church, but the Emperor was the law behind it. Councils sometimes passed canons that were not to pope's liking, and some refused to sign them. The Councils were passed regardless and usually another pope would, under sometimes very obvious pressure and threats, agree to with the Emperor and the Council and sign it.

I have seen other Orthodox assert that all the patriarchs needed to agree - I guess this isn't really a settled issue in the Orthodox Church. Why did the previous seven Councils seek confirmation from the Pope if it wasn't necessary? In the letter of the Council of Chalcedon to St. Leo I it is stated that the "force of all" rests upon his confirmation of the council.

Are you saying that it was the Emperor's consent that made a council Ecumenical?

kosta: "Vicomte, we are a hairline apart but that hairline is a narrow, yet deep, deep canyon."

Yes, that is true.
And because a hairline is so narrow, however deep, the age is past when we should toss rocks at each other across it.
(The age never should have arisen in the first place...but "Woe unto the world because of offenses, for it must needs be that offenses come, but woe unto the man by whom the offense cometh.")
If we should suppose that the Great Schism was just such an offense that, in the Providence of God, must needs come, and that the division it has left between us is a deep and abiding scar, the wound inflicted by the past on us is real. But we, alive in the hear and now, need not commit our own offenses of making the wounds worse. Catholics are not Protestants. We are a sacramental church based on ancient Tradition, in the Apostolic Succession going all the way back to Jesus, just like the Orthodox. Our differences are real, but they are not the difference between Protestants and Catholics. Those differences are real, but they are of a different order. It is possible to imagine a reconciliation between Orthodoxy and Catholicism, with each coming into full communion with the other without the death of either Church. It is not possible to imagine, say, the Southern Baptist Convention coming into full communion with the Patriarch of Constantinople, without a complete change in the very nature of Southern Baptism itself.

"Kolokotrinis, the non-Orthodox are not invited to take the Eucharist. If the priest doesn't recognize someone he will specifically ask if that person is Orthodox before giving the Eucharist."

I'd say our posts crossed in the ether! Of course non-Orthodox cannot receive. Our priest actually makes an announcement most Sundays before communion because we have so many interested non-Orthodox attending.