Do Melkites and other EC Reject Latin Views of the Papacy?

[Ghosty]

Ghosty:
Many of these “Western general councils” did indeed proclaim themselves to be ecumenical (Fourth Lateran, Trent, etc). How would you explain that? Were the popes and fathers concerned wrong?

I wouldn’t say they were wrong, I’d just say that such a proclamation doesn’t automatically make a Council Ecumenical. There have been many Councils calling themselves Ecumenical which aren’t recognized as such.

That being said, I’m kind of doubtful about the usefulness of such distinctions. All I want to know is if a Council’s teachings are orthodox, and accepted by the Catholic Communion; everything else is just semantics for me.

Peace and God bless!

 

[fwon2638]

There is actually no official list of Ecumenical Councils in the Catholic Communion. This often comes as a surprise to modern people because we’re used to hearing about a set number, but that number was devised by historians based on their own criteria and didn’t become widely accepted until recent centuries. To this day there is no Catholic-wide “list” of Ecumenical Councils on an official level, despite what you might read in articles and books.

That being the case, the Melkite Church (and other Churches from the Eastern Orthodox tradition) keeps their own “official list”, which was established at Seven. This doesn’t mean that there is a rejection of the decisions of what are called the “Western Councils” (a term that Popes a recently as Pope Pius XII have used), just that they aren’t officially commemorated as Ecumenical Councils. They are true, correct, and orthodox, and reflect the Catholic Faith (albeit the latter ones are often exclusively in a Latin manner, until Vatican II where the Eastern Churches had significant (name removed by moderator)ut in shaping the Council).

One thing to keep in mind is that the Melkite Calendar has actual Feast Days for the various Councils, something the Latin Church doesn’t do. Since there is no “Official Catholic List”, and the Melkite Church accepts the orthodoxy of the teachings of the Western Councils, there’s no problem with saying there have been Seven Ecumenical Councils, though that statement might be confusing to those who don’t know about the Catholic Church’s lack of an official list.

Peace and God bless!

Ghosty,

If there is no Ecumenical Councils since Nicea II (at least from the Eastern perspective), does that mean those subsequent “Western” councils are not infallible (even though the teachings are acceptable by the East)?

Thanks,

Francis

 

[Aramis]

Hat #1 is pretty much “Archpatriarch”.

While Rome does not use the term Archpatriarch, Mar Soros cites the Assyrian church description of the Petrine role of the pope toward patriarchs as patriarchs are to bishops. His citation is from a 1st millenium Assyrian Patriarch.

In all practicality, the Pope DOES function as Archpatriarch of the Catholic Union: Symbol of Unity, Speaker for the Synod, and able to intervene universally.

 

[Ghosty]

Ghosty,

If there is no Ecumenical Councils since Nicea II (at least from the Eastern perspective), does that mean those subsequent “Western” councils are not infallible (even though the teachings are acceptable by the East)?

Thanks,

Francis

Honestly I’ve not heard anything regarding infallibility of those Councils. In fact, even the first Seven aren’t generally spoken of as “infallible” in my experience; it’s just not a category that seems to be used much. It’s enough to say that these Councils were correct, orthodox, and reflect the Apostolic Faith.

Peace and God bless!

 

[Allyson]

I’ve actually emailed this webmaster and told him/her of the error.

Error? Would you elaborate. Some how, I don’t think that they would believe that the content of the material is in error, so I am wondering to what you are referring.

 

[jimmy]

It seems to me that you must speak of the pope as a higher level of ordination than the other bishops if you are to follow VI and VII. What the bishop is to the priests in his diocese, the pope is to the bishops. As VI says, he speaks ex sese, or ‘from himself’. The other bishops are of little consequence. The VII council affirmed this(Check Lumen Gentium 25). He does not need any consent from the bishops.
And this is the infallibility which the Roman Pontiff, the head of the college of bishops, enjoys in virtue of his office, when, as the supreme shepherd and teacher of all the faithful, who confirms his brethren in their faith,(166) by a definitive act he proclaims a doctrine of faith or morals.(42*) And therefore his definitions, of themselves, and not from the consent of the Church, are justly styled irreformable, since they are pronounced with the assistance of the Holy Spirit, promised to him in blessed Peter, and therefore they need no approval of others, nor do they allow an appeal to any other judgment.

Honestly I’ve not heard anything regarding infallibility of those Councils. In fact, even the first Seven aren’t generally spoken of as “infallible” in my experience; it’s just not a category that seems to be used much. It’s enough to say that these Councils were correct, orthodox, and reflect the Apostolic Faith.

That is interesting Ghosty. I have never heard that. Every time I have heard talk of the 21 councils I have heard them refered to as infallible. I haven’t heard any official documents say it that I am aware of but I think it is the general consensus of Catholic theologians. Further I think it follows from the idea of papal infallibility. If the pope is infallible why wouldn’t the council that he called and presided over be as well?

I have heard of disputes though about what exactly is infallible in the council. I have heard that John Henry Newman thought that only the canons were infallible.

 

[Chaldean_Rite]

Error? Would you elaborate. Some how, I don’t think that they would believe that the content of the material is in error, so I am wondering to what you are referring.

There have been more than 7 E. councils.

 

[Allyson]

There have been more than 7 E. councils.

That’s what I thought. Yeah, your not likely to get much satisfaction on this point.

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

I’m especially confused because if they don’t consider the Vatican councils ecumenical, it suggests that they don’t consider Papal Infallibilty to be binding on all Christians. This, in turn, undermines the authority of the Immaculate Conception and the Assumption of Mary.

The story I heard, on the Net, from a poster identifying himself as a Ruthenian & a deacon, was that in 1976 Pope Paul VI had said that the councils since the Seventh Ecumenical Council that, in the West, had been considered as Ecumenical, would henceforth be considered as councils of the Latin Church only.​

IOW - all Ecumenical Councils since and including Constantinople IV in 869/70 to Vatican II, are binding on Roman Catholics, but not Byzantine, Coptic, or other Catholics.

Sorry about the “Chinese whispers” -

If that is the case, it would be very nice if somebody qualified to do so would explain how this does not very comprehensively trash & destroy the claims of Rome to infallibility in teaching - if Vatican I (for example) is limited in this way, so that Catholics elsewhere in the Chirch are at liberty to ignore its definitions, what possible reason can there be for Roman-Rite Catholics to treat them as Divinely revealed dogmas ? And what happens to the Church’s unity of faith ? If this assertion about the status of these councils is true, is it not rather dishonest of the Papacy to carry on in public as though these Councils oblige all Catholics, when they do not ? Or do honesty & truthfulness not matter at Rome ? A dishonest Church found out, is a Church impossible to trust

ISTM your conclusion is inescapable - everything built on the idea that those Councils are fully ecumenical, collapses in ruins. And no Popes can resist the logic of that position, even if they try. If Rome has fouled up since 869, the best thing for us all is for them to come clean & admit it. Living in denial leads nowhere.

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

I agree that the East was with and not under the Papacy in the early Church, but listening to Latins, I think their pretty adamant on sustaining this notion of Papal Supremacy. It seems to be the general opinion among them and, since they comprise the vast majority of Catholics, it seems to be the most influential view in the Catholic Communion.

I think that’s a fairly orthodox view of the papacy, but forcing people to sign documents seems to suggest that the Popes would want to revise “Hat no. 1”. Coercion is incompatible with true agreement. Just my opinion at least.

A related criticism was made from a very different quarter - one of the “Old Catholic” complaints was that the Council was not free. Cardinal (as he became after 1875) Joseph Hergenroether devoted a whole book to parrying OC criticisms of Vatican I - as happens, it appears that he ( with other apologists for V1 before & since) was mistaken.​

Which makes one wonder whether anything said by the early apologists for the Council is worth the paper it’s written on. If Rome itself agrees with its critics, refutations of those critics become worthless. What else is it going to concede, that it currently does not concede ? Enquiring minds would like to know… Is a Photius a Saint - or a schismatic ? The Church that is incapable of error has reversed itself: having infallibly called him a schismatic, it now with equal infallibility honours him as a Saint. So much for infallibility , whether of Church, or Pope, or Councils ! Protestantism is less giddy & changeable than this.

 

[East_and_West]

Personally, I don’t think so, but from what I can tell, a great deal of EC, if not most, do not, and have never, subscribed to what most people think of when they hear “universal jusrisdiction”. This is a main issue that confuses me about the place of EC within the Catholic Communion.

I agree. I think there is quite a bit of confusion on this matter. My friend, who is a dominican friar, says that HE (not me) believes that the state of the Eastern Catholic Churches is problematic. I wouldn’t go so far myself, but I understand where he is coming from.

 

[Ghosty]

That is interesting Ghosty. I have never heard that. Every time I have heard talk of the 21 councils I have heard them refered to as infallible. I haven’t heard any official documents say it that I am aware of but I think it is the general consensus of Catholic theologians. Further I think it follows from the idea of papal infallibility. If the pope is infallible why wouldn’t the council that he called and presided over be as well?

I’m talking about how they’ve been discussed in the Melkite Church, not by Catholics in general. The question of infallibility just doesn’t come up; the only thing that matters is that they were valid Councils, they are orthodox in their teachings, and Catholics don’t disagree with them.

Likewise, the question of them being “binding” on Catholics other than Latins is a silly one; how can a teaching be true for one Catholic Church, but not for another? If we are in a single Communion, and uphold a single Faith, then what is true for one is true for all. Since these Councils are NOT heretical, they are truly Catholic. The real issue is simply whether or not the theological language of these Councils is binding on Catholics, and the answer to that is a definite no since the language isn’t even binding on Latin Catholics.

The matter of Ecumenicity is simply one of whether or not all the orthodox Churches were represented, and that is obviously a negative. That has no bearing on whether or not the Councils taught the Truth (similarlly, there have been Eastern Orthodox Councils that upheld the Truth, and are perfectly orthodox in their teachings; it would be foolish to say that the Truths upheld in such Orthodox Councils apply only to the Eastern Orthodox, regardless of the fact that they weren’t Ecumenical).

I guess the main issue here is that people confuse “Ecumenical” with “infallible” or “orthodox”, which is simply not the case. Ecumenical has a very specific meaning, and it can’t realistically be applied to all 21 of the Councils in question. They may be correct, and they may teach Truths upheld by all Catholics, but that doesn’t make them Ecumenical.

Peace and God bless!

 

[tdgesq]

I guess the main issue here is that people confuse “Ecumenical” with “infallible” or “orthodox”, which is simply not the case. Ecumenical has a very specific meaning, and it can’t realistically be applied to all 21 of the Councils in question. They may be correct, and they may teach Truths upheld by all Catholics, but that doesn’t make them Ecumenical.

Although this may be the view of the Melkite Catholic Church on what constitutes an ecumenical council, it pretty clearly isn’t the view of the Roman Catholic Church. In his opening address to the Second Vatican Council, Pope John the XXIII states:

Mother Church rejoices that, by the singular gift of Divine Providence, the longed-for day has finally dawned when – under the auspices of the virgin Mother of God, whose maternal dignity is commemorated on this feast – the Second Vatican Ecumenical Council is being solemnly opened here beside St. Peter’s tomb.

The Councils – both the twenty ecumenical ones and the numberless others, also important, of a provincial or regional character which have been held down through the years – all prove clearly the vigor of the Catholic Church and are recorded as shining lights in her annals.

In calling this vast assembly of bishops, the latest and humble successor to the Prince of the Apostles who is addressing you intended to assert once again the Magisterium (teaching authority), which is unfailing and perdures until the end of time, in order that this Magisterium, taking into account the errors, the requirements, and the opportunities of our time, might be presented in exceptional form to all men throughout the world. ourladyswarriors.org/teach/v2open.htm

Many of the western councils after Nicaea II declare that they are ecumenical councils; specifically the Council of Trent, which declares numerous times within the actual conciliar documents that it is ecumenical. That being said, it is obvious to me that the Melkite Church means something different by the term “ecumenical.”

If by ecumenical we mean that a council was attended by representatives of the Eastern Churches, then the Melkite view is correct, with the councils of Florence and Vatican One falling somewhere in a grey area. I don’t think Roman Catholics should have a problem with this. It would only be a problem if the ECCs rejected the dogmatic conclusions of those councils. Even then, those that are formulated purely in the context of Latin theology may be inapplicable to the East. Not inapplicable in the sense that something absolutely true and binding about the Christian faith is expressed in those statements, but only in the sense that those same truths are expressed differently through another theological system.

I agree It isn’t necessary to push the panic button all the way in when one Catholic Church says twenty-one ecumenical councils and another says seven. Particularly when from everything I have seen our bishops through the presbyters are teaching what everyone in the Catholic communion holds to be true.

 

[Ghosty]

If by ecumenical we mean that a council was attended by representatives of the Eastern Churches, then the Melkite view is correct, with the councils of Florence and Vatican One falling somewhere in a grey area. I don’t think Roman Catholics should have a problem with this. It would only be a problem if the ECCs rejected the dogmatic conclusions of those councils. Even then, those that are formulated purely in the context of Latin theology may be inapplicable to the East. Not inapplicable in the sense that something absolutely true and binding about the Christian faith is expressed in those statements, but only in the sense that those same truths are expressed differently through another theological system.

I agree It isn’t necessary to push the panic button all the way in when one Catholic Church says twenty-one ecumenical councils and another says seven. Particularly when from everything I have seen our bishops through the presbyters are teaching what everyone in the Catholic communion holds to be true.

This pretty much sums up my position as well, and follows the understanding of the Councils I’ve received from our Melkite Bishops in the U.S.

Definitely not something to press the “panic button” over.

One thing people must keep in mind is that the Melkite Church has always, and will until full Reunion, try to speak as an “Eastern Orthodox voice” within the Catholic Communion. This doesn’t mean that it rejects what the rest of the Catholic Church teaches, it just means that it always tries to come at from the perspective of an Eastern Orthodox Church that accepts the Catholic Communion. This is something that is absolutely critical if we are going to have Reunion eventually, because it allows for the Catholic Communion to work on “dialogue” and refine its position even when difficulties arise in ecumenical discussions with the Eastern Orthodox proper.

The Melkite Church truly believes that the Eastern Orthodox position, and the Catholic position, are reconcilable, and acts accordingly.

Peace and God bless!

 

[jimmy]

I’m talking about how they’ve been discussed in the Melkite Church, not by Catholics in general. The question of infallibility just doesn’t come up; the only thing that matters is that they were valid Councils, they are orthodox in their teachings, and Catholics don’t disagree with them.

Likewise, the question of them being “binding” on Catholics other than Latins is a silly one; how can a teaching be true for one Catholic Church, but not for another? If we are in a single Communion, and uphold a single Faith, then what is true for one is true for all. Since these Councils are NOT heretical, they are truly Catholic. The real issue is simply whether or not the theological language of these Councils is binding on Catholics, and the answer to that is a definite no since the language isn’t even binding on Latin Catholics.

The matter of Ecumenicity is simply one of whether or not all the orthodox Churches were represented, and that is obviously a negative. That has no bearing on whether or not the Councils taught the Truth (similarlly, there have been Eastern Orthodox Councils that upheld the Truth, and are perfectly orthodox in their teachings; it would be foolish to say that the Truths upheld in such Orthodox Councils apply only to the Eastern Orthodox, regardless of the fact that they weren’t Ecumenical).

I guess the main issue here is that people confuse “Ecumenical” with “infallible” or “orthodox”, which is simply not the case. Ecumenical has a very specific meaning, and it can’t realistically be applied to all 21 of the Councils in question. They may be correct, and they may teach Truths upheld by all Catholics, but that doesn’t make them Ecumenical.

Peace and God bless!

Ghosty, it sounds like we’re playing with words here. According to the western ecclesiology you would have to call them ecumenical. The west considers the pope and the bishops in communion with him to make up the magisterium. It is the approval of Rome that makes the council ecumenical. It is not the attendance of eastern bishops.

It seems to me that the fact that the Melchites deny the ecumenicity of the later 14 councils implies that they profess that their is a lower degree of authority of those councils which means that the affirmation of the eastern bishops actually means something for a council. It seems to imply that the Eastern Orthodox bishops are a part of the Church in the full sense of the word, not in some deficient manner.

 

[Ghosty]

Ghosty, it sounds like we’re playing with words here. According to the western ecclesiology you would have to call them ecumenical. The west considers the pope and the bishops in communion with him to make up the magisterium. It is the approval of Rome that makes the council ecumenical. It is not the attendance of eastern bishops.

It seems to me that the fact that the Melchites deny the ecumenicity of the later 14 councils implies that they profess that their is a lower degree of authority of those councils which means that the affirmation of the eastern bishops actually means something for a council. It seems to imply that the Eastern Orthodox bishops are a part of the Church in the full sense of the word, not in some deficient manner.

For the Melkite Church the Eastern Orthodox are the “missing partner”, but that doesn’t mean that decisions of the Catholic Churches aren’t binding without them. The Melkite Church does try to represent the Eastern Orthodox at every Council, however, and views their participation as critical for the well-being of the Church as a whole.

More than anything I’d say that the rest of the Catholic Communion is simply catching up to the Melkites on this perspective, rather than the Melkites being out of touch. It’s obvious, especially during the last two Papacies, that the “Melkite perspective” of the Eastern Orthodox being true Churches that currently have a rocky relationship with the Catholic Communion is taking firmer hold in the highest stations of the Catholic Communion.

As for participation by Eastern Orthodox bishops, of course it’s important, especially if they are truly Apostolic Bishops as the Catholic Church professes, but it doesn’t mean that a true and binding Council can’t be held without them. It just means that true Ecumenicity isn’t achieved without them.

Peace and God bless!

 

[twf]

Ghosty:

The matter of Ecumenicity is simply one of whether or not all the orthodox Churches were represented, and that is obviously a negative. That has no bearing on whether or not the Councils taught the Truth (similarlly, there have been Eastern Orthodox Councils that upheld the Truth, and are perfectly orthodox in their teachings; it would be foolish to say that the Truths upheld in such Orthodox Councils apply only to the Eastern Orthodox, regardless of the fact that they weren’t Ecumenical).

What makes the councils after Chalcedon ecumenical? The Coptic, Syriac, Armenian and Indian Christians were not present…and in fact reject these councils. Even Ephesus was rejected by the Christians of the Persian Empire (Assyrians). By the Melkite definition I would content that we have had at BEST one or two ecumenical councils. By the standard Latin definition (which the vast majority of educated Catholics take for granted, whether you like it or not), there have been 21. A truly ecumenical council (all churches represented) is almost impossible. That is why Peter speaks on behalf of the entire Catholic Communion when ratifying a council as “ecumenical” and binding. (As he did for the 21 recognized councils from Nicaea to Vatican II).

 

[Ghosty]

Ghosty:

What makes the councils after Chalcedon ecumenical? The Coptic, Syriac, Armenian and Indian Christians were not present…and in fact reject these councils. Even Ephesus was rejected by the Christians of the Persian Empire (Assyrians). By the Melkite definition I would content that we have had at BEST one or two ecumenical councils. By the standard Latin definition (which the vast majority of educated Catholics take for granted, whether you like it or not), there have been 21. A truly ecumenical council (all churches represented) is almost impossible. That is why Peter speaks on behalf of the entire Catholic Communion when ratifying a council as “ecumenical” and binding. (As he did for the 21 recognized councils from Nicaea to Vatican II).

For what it’s worth, I agree with you about the lack of “ecumenicity” of most of the Councils. That’s why I prefer not to even bother listing the number of Ecumenical Councils at all, preferring instead to focus on the teachings accepted in the Catholic Church in general.

The question of “Ecumenical Councils” is too sticky and political to serve any real use, IMO.

Peace and God bless!

 

[jimmy]

For the Melkite Church the Eastern Orthodox are the “missing partner”, but that doesn’t mean that decisions of the Catholic Churches aren’t binding without them. The Melkite Church does try to represent the Eastern Orthodox at every Council, however, and views their participation as critical for the well-being of the Church as a whole.

More than anything I’d say that the rest of the Catholic Communion is simply catching up to the Melkites on this perspective, rather than the Melkites being out of touch. It’s obvious, especially during the last two Papacies, that the “Melkite perspective” of the Eastern Orthodox being true Churches that currently have a rocky relationship with the Catholic Communion is taking firmer hold in the highest stations of the Catholic Communion.

As for participation by Eastern Orthodox bishops, of course it’s important, especially if they are truly Apostolic Bishops as the Catholic Church professes, but it doesn’t mean that a true and binding Council can’t be held without them. It just means that true Ecumenicity isn’t achieved without them.

Peace and God bless!

Have you read Archbishop Zhogby’s books? He clearly says that the western councils are not binding on eastern Christians.

 

[Ghosty]

Have you read Archbishop Zhogby’s books? He clearly says that the western councils are not binding on eastern Christians.

Yes, but Sayedna Zoghby spoke only of his own opinion; his works are hardly authoritative on the matter. There are a number of flaws in Sayedna Zoghby’s thinking on the matter, for example no doctrine can be binding and true on one group, but untrue for another; such thinking is obviously self-contradictory and unreasonable, because it supports moral and doctrinal relativity. Are only Latin Catholics born without Divine Grace, for example? Such thinking is, to but it bluntly, absurd; either something is Truth for all, or it’s not Truth at all. It would also mean that the teaching that Christ is Divine and Human is not Truth for the non-Chalcedonians, or that Iconophilia really is idolatry for Maronites.

Sayedna Zoghby did some great work in promoting Byzantine theology and ecclesiology, but not all of his thoughts are worth holding on to. This is one of those thoughts, not because it contradicts Rome, but because it’s utterly untenable at its root. It would be wrong on the face of it even if it wasn’t contradicted by the Catholic Communion.

That being said, the theological approach and language of Western Councils isn’t binding on non-Latins, but the Catholic Church has never really claimed that it is.

Peace and God bless!