Youre missing the spice called Orthodox bishops.
Irrelevant to ecumenical status. Not a single western bishop participated in the First Council of Constantinople, yet its ecumenical status is undisputed today among all apostolic churches. The Oriental Orthodox haven’t been represented since the fifth century, yet that doesn’t stop the rest of us from considering at least three later councils to be ecumenical.
The presence of bishops from every apostolic church was never a prerequisite for ecumenical status, and it never will be, and it never can be.
Schism cannot hold the Church’s teaching authority hostage in that manner.
Thus, the presence of episcopal cohorts from multiple ritual churches is
not a prerequisite for an ecumenical council.
- See to it that Eastern Catholic Churches are represented.
- Invite Eastern Orthodox bishops to attend.
- Invite Oriental Orthodox bishops to attend.
isn’t a “formula” or “recipe” (or whatever we want to call it) for an ecumenical council.
He never implied it was. You’re right, the presence of eastern bishops and all that is
not a formula for an ecumenical council.
What he
did imply was that the presence of both western and eastern bishops from autonomous hierarchies renders unintelligible and self-evidently false the suggestion that such a council is a local synod of the Latin Church.
Saying that the above traits are a formula for an ecumenical council is **not **the same thing as saying that the participation of non-Latin bishops precludes the possibility of that particular council being a general council of the Latin Church only.
The former claim is untrue.
The latter claim is indisputably true.
I’m over the whole direct voting thing for all the bishops at these “Ecumenical” Councils. Maybe next time around they can give each Church
sui iuris one vote. Each Synod would vote together and then the Patriarchs, Major Archbishops, and Metropolitans of each Church would cast the vote of their Synod, leaving Rome only a single voice in the mass of twenty other Eastern Churches. I think that would be fair enough.
That makes no sense. Consider:
(1) What about the sui iuris Catholic churches who have no hierarchy? Who casts your “vote” for the Russian Catholic Church?
(2) The Latin Church is not reducible to Rome. Why should Antioch - in all its theological varieties, no less (i.e. Greek/Syriac/Maronite) - and Alexandria, etc. each get a vote of their own, but Rome and Milan and Venice and Braga and Toledo and every North and South American Latin diocese all get lumped together?
Yeah, that’s not how a council works.
1 billion Latin Catholics, representing multiple distinct Western traditions, reduced to a single vote simply because the West never developed the national patriarchate model?
Well said.
I would be remiss not to note that “National Patriarchate Syndrome” was invented by Moscow for its own purposes, and has been embraced only the Slav Byzantines (who, voluntarily or (mainly) otherwise, have been in the thrall of MP for centuries). Such “National Patriarchates” do not exist among the non-Slav Byzantines (even Cyprus, the oldest autocephalous Church, does not claim such a title), nor do they exist in any of the Oriental Churches.
I’d prefer to forget the so-called “episcopal conferences” and restore the prerogatives of the Primatial Sees and all that goes with it (electing the Primate locally, etc). That would restore at least some semblance of the Synodal model in the West.
Now, insofar as conclaves are concerned, in such a scenario, it might be conceivable to have each Primate be an elector ex-officio, but of course that would inevitably conflict with the jealously guarded powers of the Cardinals and the Curia. It would seem to me the only way such a schema would work is to strip Cardinals of their position as “electors by virtue of the red hat” such that only those who are also Primates would be eligible to vote. Doing it that would would open the playing field, and allow for Eastern & Oriental Patriarchs, Cathlolicoi, and Metropilitans to also have the possibility of being electors ex-officio.
Malphono, your posts are always such a breath of fresh air. I really appreciate your wisdom, logic, and insightful clarity.
The Pope appoints Latin bishops, true, but the lists of candidates are generated locally (each Metropolitan maintains a list of potential candicates for the episcopate), with the short-list generated by the Nuncio…I imagine it is quite rare for the Pope not to go with one of the locally nominated candidates. Also, rules on fasting, holy days of obligation, the liturgical calendar, when to kneel/stand during the liturgy, particulars of priestly formation, mode of receiving holy communion, use of EMHC/altar girls, or even the existence of a permanent diaconate, among other things, is determined at either the diocese or national level for the most part…so even if a rubber stamp from Rome is required for a lot of these particulars, I would argue that post-Vatican II Latin bishops have had a fair degree of autonomy for all practical intents and purposes. I work/live in two Latin dioceses in two different nations - in many ways it feels like I’m worshipping in two distinct Churches sui iuris.
Excellent points. Everything I said about malphono applies to your posts too, twf.
.