They probably will... :O)
That does raise a question in my mind. I believe in all our discussions it has been the position of Rome that Councils were only meant to affirmed what beliefs were held by the Church. Where there are two differences, one is correct and one is heretical. It is the Council job to sort those matters out and confirm what is the correct doctrine held by the Church and what isn't. Under our scenario, either Rome or the Orthodox are teaching heretic doctrine. You don't really expect Rome to admit they're teaching heresy now would you?
But you have suggested a different use of a Council; to establish new precedence by reconciling doctrinal beliefs. While it is my understanding the Orthodox use of the Council in this fashion, Councils were never used this way under the Roman Catholic Church-or so we've been told. Under this scenario, if Rome admits to using a Council in this fashion, it calls into questions ALL Councils, since the purpose of the Council (as we've been told) is underminded.
Either the purpose of the Council is to affirm what the early church fathers believed which makes the Orthodox view in the Roman Catholic Church heretical, or the Council purpose is to reconcile and establish doctrine which means they can't point back to a Council to state an affirmation of a belief. If the answer is that a Council does both, then the argument calls into question any decision by the Council.
You know, there is a difference between reason and rationalization, HD. The only Ecumenical Councils that were held are the first seven. The others were either not classified as ecumenical or were classified as ecumenical but were not for one reason or another.
Some of the doctrinal differences that exist between the east and the west have to do with the language used, with concepts, etc. which express either fully the same belief but in such a way tat it is not understood the same, or incompletely (such as in the case of the Purgatory and Filioque respectively).
In other cases a doctrine was developed by necessity, based on another doctrine that is itself not defined the same way between the east and the west (i.e. the "original sin"). Immaculate Conception is a perfect example of that.
The East does not deny that Theotokos was immaculate, but only that she was not conceived immaculately, which is taught by the Latin side as a necessary dogma based on Augustinian concept of the "original sin," which the east never taught.
Individual teachings of various Fathers that do not agree with Councils are not heretical. They represent theological opinions and hypotheses, but not doctrine. Thus, Catholics were allowed to believe in the Limbo, but were not required to.
The concept of limbus patrum to which both Churches held, as a state where the souls of the OT Righteous were before Resurrection, served as a precedence for a hypothesis of limbus infantum.
Our differences are not heresies: they represent disagreements within the Church, and such disagreements were addressed by various councils, both general (Ecumenical) or local. The important point is to remember that only the Ecumenical Synods are binding, but even there one finds that somehow discipline and habits sometimes do not follow the declarations of the Church completely.
The best example is prohibition of kneeling on Sundays (by the First Ecumenical Council), yet Roman Catholics, Antionchan Orthodox (in America), Greek Orthodox (in America), etc. habitually kneel on Sundays. Kneeing is especially proscribed during 40 days after Resurrection. If one is to follow the First Ecumenical Council, the proper way to attend Divine Liturgy is only by standing (exception being the Pentecost when there is kneeling).
That's why "old country" Orthodox parishes never have pews (the Church is supposed to be a home, not a theater!), and there are chairs along the walls for the sick and weak (pregnant, elderly, etc.), but at no time is one supposed to be comfortable in church. One does not go to church to relax, but to stand in awe.
"That does raise a question in my mind. I believe in all our discussions it has been the position of Rome that Councils were only meant to affirmed what beliefs were held by the Church."
Not really; that's far, far too simplistic. Whether or not the whole Church always believed something may or may not have to do with it. The writings of the early Fathers are full of speculations which were accepted or rejected by the councils and in any event, in the end its up to the people to affirm a dogmatic pronouncement (though this isn't accepted in the West).
"Where there are two differences, one is correct and one is heretical."
Oh that's not true at all. Often what appear to be differences are only in how we talk about things. In other cases, the Western dogma of the Assumption being an example, dogma in the West may only be theolougemenon in the East. The areas of doctrine, discipline and praxis are filled with differences which could be dealt with by a council but have nothing to do with heresy.
"While it is my understanding the Orthodox use of the Council in this fashion, Councils were never used this way under the Roman Catholic Church-or so we've been told. Under this scenario, if Rome admits to using a Council in this fashion, it calls into questions ALL Councils, since the purpose of the Council (as we've been told) is underminded.'
Sorry, wrong again. Western Councils have often refined dogmatic, doctrinal and praxis points. The problem, by the way, evaporates when one takes the position that non ecumenical councils are by their nature local and therefore binding only on the particular church which is holding it.
"Either the purpose of the Council is to affirm what the early church fathers believed which makes the Orthodox view in the Roman Catholic Church heretical, or the Council purpose is to reconcile and establish doctrine which means they can't point back to a Council to state an affirmation of a belief."
Where does this come from. You've set up a wholly false dichotomy, Harley.
"If the answer is that a Council does both, then the argument calls into question any decision by the Council."
Why? I'm not following you at all. On the other hand, Kosta is right. Most of Protestantism will have nothing to do with what The Church does in a great council.