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

  • Thread starter Thread starter Zabdi_Premjit
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Z

Zabdi_Premjit

Guest
From website of Melkite Greek Catholic Church, Eparchy of Newark.
melkite.org/Challenge2005B.htm
8 How many Ecumenical Councils were held?
a. Seven Ecumenical Councils
9 Was the Vatican council an ecumenical council? Why?, why not?
a. The Vatican council was not an ecumenical council – no participation from the Orthodox
I thought Catholics defined an Ecumenical Council as a general council convened by the Pope? Are Eastern Catholics not in agreeance with this? Because that would mean that they have different opinion of what the authority and function of the Pope is, when compared to the views of Roman Catholics. Anyone care to explain this, because was shocked to read it?
 
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.
 
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!
 
I don’t mean to stir up the pot, but Melkite Patriarch Gregory Joseph deliberately left the council before the vote was taken. When forced to sign the decree, he added the words, “Without prejudice to the rights and privileges of the Eastern Patriarchs” or something similar.
 
As with most things, your question revolves around semantics and, in this case, the views of a particular Church. The Melkites have always viewed themselves as being the voice of the Orthodox at general councils since the Orthodox had no official voice. Since an ecumenical council would, by definition, mean the entire Church, the Melkites view the councils since the 7th as non-ecumenical since they did not include the Orthodox. They are still binding on the entire Catholic Church, which includes the Melkites, however.

As far as the Immaculate Conception and the Assumption of Mary are concerned, the Eastern Churches accept the teaching that Mary was ever sinless and celebrate the Dormition of Mary which includes her assumption into heaven. That these are defined in Eastern terms rather than Western terms makes it appear that the Western definition is rejected, but it is not, it is only the expression that changes.

Deacon Ed
 
I don’t mean to stir up the pot, but Melkite Patriarch Gregory Joseph deliberately left the council before the vote was taken. When forced to sign the decree, he added the words, “Without prejudice to the rights and privileges of the Eastern Patriarchs” or something similar.
Yes, he did. We should also remember that a goodly number of the Latin bishops also left before the decree was voted on.

Deacon Ed
 
From website of Melkite Greek Catholic Church, Eparchy of Newark.
melkite.org/Challenge2005B.htm

I thought Catholics defined an Ecumenical Council as a general council convened by the Pope? Are Eastern Catholics not in agreeance with this? Because that would mean that they have different opinion of what the authority and function of the Pope is, when compared to the views of Roman Catholics. Anyone care to explain this, because was shocked to read it?
I’ve actually emailed this webmaster and told him/her of the error.
 
Yes, he did. We should also remember that a goodly number of the Latin bishops also left before the decree was voted on.

Deacon Ed
There are several other things to keep in mind.
  1. The Patriarch did indeed accede to the decree with the added language which was not disputed or rejected by the Pope. Pius IX did call the Patriarch “Testa dura” - Hard headed - but accepted the qualifier to his signature.
  2. Further, Vatican I was supposed to take up the entire question of the Papacy and role of the Bishops - the former was taken up at VI, but the latter was addressed in Vatican II.
  3. While several Latin Bishops did indeed leave - and some went into schism - the Melkites did NOT go into schism over the matter at VI and were an integral part of things at VII.
  4. The definition from VI is very nuanced and particular, but is too often reduced to something it is not. I strongly recommend reading Bishop Vincent Gasser’s Relatio for the Deputation, especially on the 3 words - the definition is too “personal, absolute and separate.”
 
I don’t mean to stir up the pot, but Melkite Patriarch Gregory Joseph deliberately left the council before the vote was taken. When forced to sign the decree, he added the words, “Without prejudice to the rights and privileges of the Eastern Patriarchs” or something similar.
Why do you say he was “forced”? This is nothing but a slur - uncalled for and inaccurate. He certainly added the language (a good thing IMHO) but I seriously take issue with the implication of “forced” - and call for you to recant.
 
Why do you say he was “forced”? This is nothing but a slur - uncalled for and inaccurate. He certainly added the language (a good thing IMHO) but I seriously take issue with the implication of “forced” - and call for you to recant.

I say “forced” because he WAS forced.
 
Why do you say he was “forced”? This is nothing but a slur - uncalled for and inaccurate. He certainly added the language (a good thing IMHO) but I seriously take issue with the implication of “forced” - and call for you to recant.

I say “forced” because he WAS forced.
How little you respect the Patriarch and the Pope - and Catholics whether Melkite or Latin. A slur is a slur.
 
How little you respect the Patriarch and the Pope - and Catholics whether Melkite or Latin. A slur is a slur.
I don’t think HG meant it to be taken as a slur. I don’t see it as a slur, myself.🤷 From what I have read, the Melkite Patriarch was forced to sign the document.

Now to the question…

Eastern Catholics and Latins should be on the same page in regards to the Papacy. HH Patriarch Gregorios said it beautifully when he stated that the Eastern Patriarchs were “cum Petro” and not “sub Petro.” I (and I’m sure there are others) am of the opinion that the Latins need to get on board with this idea, which was what was believed in the 1st millenium Church up until at least the Council of Florence.

My Maronite pastor explained the Pope as having “three hats.” I think I’ve heard it elsewhere, but I’m going to call it the Three Hat theory:

Hat no. 1: The Pope can speak on behalf of all Christians in regards to faith and morals, with the agreement of his brother bishops. (in essence, Ecumenical Patriarch)

Hat no. 2: The Pope is the Patriarch of Rome and all the West.

Hat no. 3: The Pope is the Bishop of the Diocese of Rome and is equal to all other Bishops.

Hope that answers the OP.

Alloho minokhoun,
Andrew
 
  1. While several Latin Bishops did indeed leave - and some went into schism - the Melkites did NOT go into schism over the matter at VI and were an integral part of things at VII.
I think this is a critical point to keep in mind. The Latin Church did indeed lose at least a few Bishops in Schism over Vatican I; the Melkite Church stayed intact (so far as I know, I’ve not heard of any Bishops leaving at least, but I’m open to correction) and remained in the Catholic Communion.

In remaining the Melkite Church was instrumental in ensuring that the teachings of Vatican II about the nature and authority of the College of Bishops and the authority of Bishops in and of themselves remained faithful to Apostolic Tradition, helping to clarify the intentions of Vatican I.

If the Melkite Church was built of Schismatically minded people and Bishops, it would have fallen out of the Catholic Communion LOOOOONG ago.

Peace and God bless!
 
Andrew’s list of “hats” is quite key; however it is fair to say that hat#1 is to the patriarchs as archbishops are to bishops: prviding oversight, guidance, and (in the eastern model) speaking on behalf of the synod.
 
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!
Thank you Ghosty! The way people talk, it really did seem as if the Catholic Communion had an official list. I never thought each particular church would have its own. Do you happen to know if the Latin Church officially recognizes all the councils up to Vatican II as ecumenical? Also, I’ve seen Latins many times saying that the criteria for an ecumenical council is that it is called as such by the Pope, and not the general acceptance of the council’s ecumenical nature by the Church as a whole. Is this an official stance of the Latin tradition, or just the common opinion among Latins?
 
Eastern Catholics and Latins should be on the same page in regards to the Papacy. HH Patriarch Gregorios said it beautifully when he stated that the Eastern Patriarchs were “cum Petro” and not “sub Petro.” I (and I’m sure there are others) am of the opinion that the Latins need to get on board with this idea, which was what was believed in the 1st millenium Church up until at least the Council of Florence.
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.
My Maronite pastor explained the Pope as having “three hats.” I think I’ve heard it elsewhere, but I’m going to call it the Three Hat theory:

Hat no. 1: The Pope can speak on behalf of all Christians in regards to faith and morals, with the agreement of his brother bishops. (in essence, Ecumenical Patriarch)

Hat no. 2: The Pope is the Patriarch of Rome and all the West.

Hat no. 3: The Pope is the Bishop of the Diocese of Rome and is equal to all other Bishops.

Hope that answers the OP.

Alloho minokhoun,
Andrew
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. 🤷
 
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. 🤷
Vatincan I states that Pope has universal jurisdiction over the entire Church. Does the definition described above really agree with this?
 
Vatincan I states that Pope has universal jurisdiction over the entire Church. Does the definition described above really agree with this?
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.
 
Do you happen to know if the Latin Church officially recognizes all the councils up to Vatican II as ecumenical?
The Latin Church specifically doesn’t have a list of Ecumenical Councils, so I don’t know how to answer this question. All Catholics must agree with the substance of the Western General Councils, however, though they are not subject to the theological expression of those Councils.

For example, Byzantines aren’t required to use Latin theological language of merit and Sanctifying Grace, or Infused Righteousness, but they must assert along with the Council of Trent that we are really Sanctified and made Holy by God’s Grace, and not merely “judicially cleared of crimes” by the intervention of Christ.
Also, I’ve seen Latins many times saying that the criteria for an ecumenical council is that it is called as such by the Pope, and not the general acceptance of the council’s ecumenical nature by the Church as a whole. Is this an official stance of the Latin tradition, or just the common opinion among Latins?
Well, it’s impossible to say that a Council is Ecumenical because of acceptance by the Church as a whole because no Council in history has ever met that criteria, especially Chalcedon and all the councils that followed. There’s really no clear cut, official definition of an Ecumenical Council, but in general a Papal Council with a reasonable representation of the various traditions would fall into the category of Ecumenical. How one classifies individual Councils has varied throughout history, though, even before the Schism between Byzantine East and Latin West.

Peace and God bless!
 
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?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top