Are the Eastern Orthodox conciliarists?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Wandile
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
josie L #60
I think what Syromalankara is trying to point out is that there were obviously married priests as well, i.e., the West for the most part practiced priestly celibacy and the East allowed their priests to marry (as is evidenced today).
The East broke the Apostolic Norm at Trullo, which is well documented.

“In 1969 Christian Cocchini, S.J. completed his doctoral thesis at the Institut Catholique, on the history of clerical celibacy. The president of the examiners who approved his dissertation was Cardinal Danielou. Cocchini’s mastery of the sources from the New Testament to the seventh century is unequalled. This is what he found:
“From the beginnings of the Church, and throughout the Greco-Latin world, a single rule prevailed: Priests were celibate; or else, if they had married before ordination, they and their wives promised to live together thereafter without the use of the marriage. This rule was an Apostolic norm; it was proclaimed and practiced by the Apostles; and that norm in turn was founded upon the example of our Lord Himself.”

No reputable refutation of the Apostolic Norm of priestly celibacy can be substantiated after the illustrious scholarly works cited and quoted, including the following detail from Mother Angelica’s Eternal Word Television Network by the scholarly Fr John Echert of EWTN, Nov 10, 2003:
“Fr Cochini examines the question of when the tradition of priestly celibacy began in the Latin Church, and he is able to trace it back to its origins with the apostles. He examines evidence about the marital status of every known bishop, priest or deacon of the period and gives an exhaustive list of married clerics from apostolic times until the end of the seventh century, a list that includes not only the Western Church, but the East and also the Nestorian, Novatian and Pelagian Church. Then Cochini examines the relevant Church documents for the same period, including council and synod documents, papal letters, ecclesial and even secular legislation as it relates to the problem. He also provides a survey of scholarly literature on the topic. This is the definitive scholarly statement on the discipline of priestly celibacy in the Church East and West.”

Since definitive means “of recognized authority or excellence”, so be it.

For the record, Father Echert is a priest of the Archdiocese of St. Paul-Minneapolis, ordained in 1987. He is a member of the faculty of The Saint Paul Seminary in Minnesota and teaches Sacred Scripture. He is also an adjunct faculty member of the University of St. Thomas. Father Echert has the Licentiate in Sacred Scripture (S.S.L.) degree from the Pontifical Biblical Institute, Rome with additional graduate studies at the Ecole Biblique, Jerusalem.

What Cochini shows through patristic sources and conciliar documentation is that from the beginning of the Church, although married men could be priests, they were required to vow to celibacy before ordination, meaning they intended to live a life of continence. He provides extensive documentation, a bibliography and an index. “This work is of the first importance. It is the result of serious and extensive research. There is nothing even remotely comparable to this work in this whole century.” – Henri Cardinal de Lubac.

Fr Anthony Zimmerman refers to *Apostolic Origins of Priestly Celibacy *“which argues cogently from the sources that the tradition of clerical celibacy began with the apostles. If that is true, then opponents of obligatory celibacy oppose not the pope, but the twelve apostles. The book, written by Christian Cochini, S.J. (translated from French, Ignatius Press, 1990), merited this remarkable encomium from the late Henri Cardinal de Lubac: ‘This work is of the first importance. It is the result of serious and extensive research. There is nothing even remotely comparable to this work in this whole 20th century.’ And Curator of the Vatican Library, Fr. Alfons M. Stickler (later Cardinal) wrote: ‘This authoritative work is fully in accordance with the tradition of the Society of Jesus in the area of high-level scientific apostolate’ (Foreword to Cochini’s book)."

So the celibacy required for priests is from the time of the apostles, the Apostolic Norm, and obligatory, as confirmed by all scholarship, and by the Fathers and Popes.

Fr. George William Rutler, in an article entitled *A Consistent theology of clerical celibacy *(Homiletic & Pastoral Review, Feb. 1989), notes that “Virginity and celibacy were not synonymous in the original ecclesiastical institution of celibacy. Those clerics whose marriages were recognized by the Church, and they were many, were expected to abstain from conjugal union after ordination. The new archeology shows that this was the case for all the Eastern Churches in the earliest centuries, and in a mitigated form later. In the Latin Church this was the clear rule throughout the first millenium, culminating in the laws of the Gregorian reform, especially as found in the First Lateran Council of 1123, and the Second Lateran Council of 1139…The discipline of the Second Lateran Council explicitly forbidding marriage after ordination was not an innovation in the observance of continence. Its prohibition of clerical marriage was only a regulation ensuring that the apostolic norm of abstinence would be better observed.”
[My emphases].

Thus, the Church had celibate clergy only, from the beginning.
 
I am not making things up, I am simply stating that he must not have questioned that Trullo was part of the 6th ecumenical council because factually it wasn’t, moreover, the Greeks were purporting it as ecumenical long before Hadrian, even though it wasn’t ratified by a pope to give it binding force on the whole universal church (which is why Pope Justinian II went to such great lengths to have Pope Sergius sign, i.e, he was going to arrest him just like his predecessor before him did with Vigilius).

Moreover, I didn’t use the word “misled” to mean they deliberately lied to him, but that they were mistaken in believing that Trullo was part of the sixth council.
Except that was the whole issue to begin with, whether or not Trullo was ecumenical by virtue of being a continuation of the sixth ecumenical council. The Greeks said yes, and the Latins said no. And considering the disintegration of the Byzantine Empire in the wake of Arab conquests during this particular point in time, I can’t really blame the Greeks for accepting Basil of Gortnya of Crete as the papal legate due to the present economic and political circumstances. Communication across the Mediterranean Sea at this time was precarious and dangerous. For good details about such during this period, I would suggest reading Michael McCormick’s large tome, Origins of the European Economy: Communications and Commerce, A.D. 300-900. As for Justinian’s armies, they were helpless in apprehending Sergius because by this point, Rome had largely become independent from the Byzantine Empire. On this matter, I suggest reading The Republic of St. Peter: The Birth of the Papal State, 680-825. It had effectively become its own state. Hadrian obviously acquiesced to the point of it being part of the sixth council. I don’t see why this is problematic. Additionally, accepting it as ecumenical should not be a problem for any Catholic merely because some of the canons were antithetical to Latin practices. Despite claims that ecumenical councils’ canons be applied equally everywhere, historically speaking this has never been the case for any of the original seven. There was always a tolerance for diverse practices as long as it did not concern important matters such as Easter or dogma. I agree that dogmatically speaking, Trullo didn’t amount to much. I am only disputing it because you brought it up as a bone of contention in which the East dared to declare something ecumenical without Latin approval, when in fact the situation was much more complex. It doesn’t fit neatly into some sort of East vs. West scenario that so many seem prone to make it. The historical record clearly reveals a much more calm and reasoned dispute on the matter.

While we are on this subject, I see no reason why either for my Orthodox brethren to reject Constantinople 869. At the same time, I see no reason why Catholics should reject Constantinople 879, which Francis Dvornik showed to have absolutely received papal approval. The only reason why Catholics wound up rejecting it many centuries later was because of the myth of a second Photian Schism which never happened, and because Gratian simply missed it when he compiled his corpus.
Oh gosh the Greek bishops were well know for forging documents, letters and the like as well as paying of papal legates at councils to secure their signatures. Sometimes even using any bishop of Western or in as a Paul legate despite the pope not commissioning them.
I’m not interested in a pissing contest concerning who forged more. Feel free to content yourself with your dated a polemical 19th century secondary sources written during the height of the polarized clericalist and anti-clericalist fervor of Europe. I’ll content myself with much more measured approaches written by more secular authors. And if you really want to know how much Latins forged things, I suggest reading up on the following, especially when it came to the Council of Florence:

Siecienski, A. Edward. The Filioque: History of a Doctrinal Debate. New York: Oxford University Press, 2010.
 
So you’d see nothing wrong with the Russian Orthodox Church holding an ecumenical council (with only one patriarch present and with the vast majority of the participants coming from the ROC) and the Ecumenical Patriarch not even invited to said council??
There have been many councils held by individual patriarchates. None of them have been claimed as “ecumenical” because there no longer exists an “Ecumene” as was understood in the time of the Roman Empire. If they held a council defending the truth against heresy then of course it would be accepted by the rest of the Church. Why wouldn’t it be?
 
There have been many councils held by individual patriarchates. None of them have been claimed as “ecumenical” because there no longer exists an “Ecumene” as was understood in the time of the Roman Empire. If they held a council defending the truth against heresy then of course it would be accepted by the rest of the Church. Why wouldn’t it be?
Because it would be disrespectful (to the ecumenical patriarch, to those who weren’t invited . . .etc.), because it wouldn’t be following the ecumenical format/spirit that should be present at all councils purporting to be “ecumenical”, because despite the fact that the Roman empire does not exist the Universal Church should attempt to be Universal, because the Church should act as a unified entity (when able and when needed).
 
Except that was the whole issue to begin with, whether or not Trullo was ecumenical by virtue of being a continuation of the sixth ecumenical council. The Greeks said yes, and the Latins said no. And considering the disintegration of the Byzantine Empire in the wake of Arab conquests during this particular point in time, I can’t really blame the Greeks for accepting Basil of Gortnya of Crete as the papal legate due to the present economic and political circumstances.
How difficult were the economic and political circumstances when just 10 years prior there was an ecumenical council (with a papal legate present), moreover, if “communication across the Mediterranean Sea at this time was precarious and dangerous” how is that Pope Sergius was informed (communicated to) of the council only after the fact (to have it ratified), and why was Emperor Justinian willing to risk such danger in order to gain consent through force from the pope? Moreover, what would have prevented or proved difficult prior to Trullo should be just as difficult after the fact, but apparently not so.
Communication across the Mediterranean Sea at this time was precarious and dangerous. For good details about such during this period, I would suggest reading Michael McCormick’s large tome, Origins of the European Economy: Communications and Commerce, A.D. 300-900.
Seems interesting, but again, I don’t think this is the reason that there wasn’t a papal legate present or that Trullo did not conform to the usual format that was expected of Ecumenical councils during this time.
As for Justinian’s armies, they were helpless in apprehending Sergius because by this point, Rome had largely become independent from the Byzantine Empire.
Yes, they were helpless in apprehending Sergius because the Italians rose up to protect the Pope, but the question remains, why if communication was precarious due to economic and political problems, would Justinian go to such forceful lengths to gain the pope’s consent?
Additionally, accepting it as ecumenical should not be a problem for any Catholic merely because some of the canons were antithetical to Latin practices. Despite claims that ecumenical councils’ canons be applied equally everywhere, historically speaking this has never been the case for any of the original seven.
No, actually, I don’t see it as being problematic now, but the point I’m trying to make is that at that time something was assumed of this council, which was not in fact true, i.e, it was part of the 6th ecumenical council .
There was always a tolerance for diverse practices as long as it did not concern important matters such as Easter or dogma.
Yes, I agree with you 100% on this, but you have to admit that the Greeks were critical of Latin customs (Armenian too), and Trullo seemed to highlight some of that Byzantine bias.
I agree that dogmatically speaking, Trullo didn’t amount to much. I am only disputing it because you brought it up as a bone of contention in which the East dared to declare something ecumenical without Latin approval, when in fact the situation was much more complex. It doesn’t fit neatly into some sort of East vs. West scenario that so many seem prone to make it. The historical record clearly reveals a much more calm and reasoned dispute on the matter.
From an historical perspective there was a format which the Church followed in order to initiate, execute and finalize an ecumenical council, moreover, this format is what distinguished ecumenical councils from regional ones, and Trullo doesn’t fit that format (not in spirit nor in fact).
While we are on this subject, I see no reason why either for my Orthodox brethren to reject Constantinople 869. At the same time, I see no reason why Catholics should reject Constantinople 879, which Francis Dvornik showed to have absolutely received papal approval. The only reason why Catholics wound up rejecting it many centuries later was because of the myth of a second Photian Schism which never happened, and because Gratian simply missed it when he compiled his corpus.
This is interesting I will look into this. Thanks.
 
Because it would be disrespectful (to the ecumenical patriarch, to those who weren’t invited . . .etc.), because it wouldn’t be following the ecumenical format/spirit that should be present at all councils purporting to be “ecumenical”, because despite the fact that the Roman empire does not exist the Universal Church should attempt to be Universal, because the Church should act as a unified entity (when able and when needed).
Are you suggesting we should not accept truth out of pride?
 
I would say sort of. I read a great article about one of the more recent meetings between the Pope and orthodox bishops. In some wierd way, they still recognize eachother in that the Bishop of Rome (Pope) is still “first” to the Orthodox and the Bishop of Constantinople is second. Due to the schism, in Orthodox the Bishop of Constantinople acts as first. Then comes in the technicalities of what “first” means. In the RC church obviously we go with the Pope’s current role, whereas the Orthodox view “first” as more a procedural presiding position and not authority overall. If I understood it correctly, in the RC the Bishop of Constantinople is still second to the Pope in said procedural sense but obviously not due to schism. To me alot of it is much human technicality and the involvement of time as to the different councils and geographic seperations. I believe the existance of eastern catholics who are basically in line with both show what could be done if ever a reconciliation.
 
Interesting personal confusion, since both sort of recognize eachother, it would seem that each chueches councils should sort of hold water with each even since the schism. I haven’t done a thorough research into all the ins/outs, but I would wonder if either church has issued any infallible doctrine that would truly conflict with the others infallible doctrine? If not, I would almost declare that an interesting look at the work of the Holy Spirit guiding God’s church.

I get a feeling at times there is a “dfear” of what could be rather than what is. In deciding to go with a religion that claims a degree of infallibility, I had those fears that something would conflict with something I hold so true I could lose faith, but for me I have found no such teaching. And even where I would disagree with the majority of clergy, even the Pope on a issue, said things have never been issued as a church teaching. This speaks to me of the divine not allowing even a huge sentiment to be made official by its very proponents if it is not the truth of God.
 
How difficult were the economic and political circumstances when just 10 years prior there was an ecumenical council (with a papal legate present), moreover, if “communication across the Mediterranean Sea at this time was precarious and dangerous” how is that Pope Sergius was informed (communicated to) of the council only after the fact (to have it ratified), and why was Emperor Justinian willing to risk such danger in order to gain consent through force from the pope? Moreover, what would have prevented or proved difficult prior to Trullo should be just as difficult after the fact, but apparently not so.
I only listed it as a probability. The questions you ask, however, are very good ones. All I am saying is that there must have been a good reason to accept who they did as the papal legate. Justinian clearly desired papal recognition of the council, and if he knew that it would be such a problem, then he probably would have asked for a new legate. But you can’t just recall an entire council so easily after the fact, so I can also understand why he was so upset and why his successors would rather work through the issue over time with the papacy than to try to hold a new council.
 
Are you suggesting we should not accept truth out of pride?
No, I’m suggesting we should act ecumenically and in a spirit of unity not divisiveness (because divisiveness is a result of pride), we are, after all, supposed to be presenting God’s kingdom on Earth.

Moreover, charity is just as important as truth, as such truth should reflect charity and vice versa.
 
I only listed it as a probability. The questions you ask, however, are very good ones. All I am saying is that there must have been a good reason to accept who they did as the papal legate. Justinian clearly desired papal recognition of the council, and if he knew that it would be such a problem, then he probably would have asked for a new legate. But you can’t just recall an entire council so easily after the fact, so I can also understand why he was so upset and why his successors would rather work through the issue over time with the papacy than to try to hold a new council.
Why do you propose that they must have had a good reason considering that relations between Rome and Constantinople was getting rather strained (think of how Saint Pope Leo reacted to and rejected canon 28 of Chalcedon, and recollect the people who were involved, and how they continued to enforce said canon despite papal rejection)?
 
Why do you propose that they must have had a good reason considering that relations between Rome and Constantinople was getting rather strained (think of how Saint Pope Leo reacted to and rejected canon 28 of Chalcedon, and recollect the people who were involved, and how they continued to enforce said canon despite papal rejection)?
I have my reasons, which I would be happy to elaborate via pm if you wish, but it would be rather cumbersome to elaborate them in this thread. In short, I really take issue with the historiographical narrative of some sort of intense rivalry between Constantinople and Rome. My view is that people are projecting the Great Schism backwards in time onto earlier history when the church was still one.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top