Replies

By that definition, perhaps some aspects of the EO churches would be heterodox to us RCs

Actually, in schism. But, what most people don't understand is that the RCC does not see the Orthodox laity as schismatic; but only their Bishops. I would say the EOC treates the RC laity the same way. Schism between the East and the West is a profoundly ecclasiatical one, mixed with theology derived from different eclassiatiocal traditions.

For an Ecumenical Council to take place, it is absolutely necessary to reconcile the role of papal jurisdiction first (so that the Bishop of Rome can actually call for such a Synod). And, as was always the case, such Councils were convened when there were theological disputes. So, this VIII one would be no different.

Actually, in schism. But, what most people don't understand is that the RCC does not see the Orthodox laity as schismatic; but only their Bishops. I would say the EOC treates the RC laity the same way. Schism between the East and the West is a profoundly ecclasiatical one, mixed with theology derived from different eclassiatiocal traditions.

That's an interesting point -- thank you for bringing it up.

For an Ecumenical Council to take place, it is absolutely necessary to reconcile the role of papal jurisdiction first (so that the Bishop of Rome can actually call for such a Synod).

I agree -- I hope the present Pope hurries up and defines this as was the case during the 7 churches -- first among equals. The other doctrinal issues MUST be discussed (and I would put in Papal Infallibility as an issue since this was not discussed in the last council) -- I think even arguing over this doctrinal matters between us makes no sense as there has been no ecumenical decision on them, whether they are correct or not is as one might say, in limbo. That they were not deliberated upon by the Church as a whole -- east and west -- is a fact and the EO are justified to be a little wary until they are discussed.

Historically Rome/The Pope hasn't been the one to call councils.