Eastern Catholics and Ecumenical Councils

[agiosotheos]

Not getting into pedantics with you again, but I was thinking of a pan-Orthodox council not recognised as Eccumenical. I was also thinking specifically of the Synod of Jerusalem, which I now see wouldn’t count since it wasn’t pan-Orthodox. An argument could be put forward for Constantinople V, but there is also the argument that it was eccumenical, which is probably going to be the case with any council which fits my above definition.

although as far as I know a truly global council of all the churches has not been held in several hundred years

You claimed that there was at some point a “global council of all the churches”. There has never been any such a thing. Even the Ecumenical Councils were not global.

 

[agiosotheos]

The same way all Catholics accept all Councils recognized by the Catholic Church.

You mean all 21 as Ecumenical Councils with their doctrine and canonical decisions binding?

 

[Nine_Two]

You claimed that there was at some point a “global council of all the churches”. There has never been any such a thing. Even the Ecumenical Councils were not global.

Yes, global was a bad choice of words when talking with a pedant. I meant a council attended by all the churches.

 

[SyroMalankara]

Yes, global was a bad choice of words when talking with a pedant. I meant a council attended by all the churches.

That wording isn’t better, since only the first 2 Councils would then be binding. The Assyrian Church of the East became estranged from the rest of the Church in 451, they don’t recognize the Third Council nor were they present for any of the rest.

 

[diggerdomer]

I suggest you read some of the Melkit Patriarchs’ writings. They do NOT accept 12 of the last 14 as ecumenical. They accept Catholic Dogma, but not that those western regional councils are ecumenical. They are emphatic in that.

I understand that, it’s somewhat a misnomer to label them ecumenical and so the preferred term is often “general.”

 

[Nine_Two]

That wording isn’t better, since only the first 2 Councils would then be binding. The Assyrian Church of the East became estranged from the rest of the Church in 451, they don’t recognize the Third Council nor were they present for any of the rest.

The question was about pan-Orthodox meetings. I meant all Churches which are part of the pan-Orthodox communion. And I’m not necessarily talking about Ecumenical Councils.

Anyway this has strayed off topic.

 

[Formosus]

what do you mean by “binding”?

As an Oriental Catholic, I hold the first 3 Councils in pre-eminent place, but I also accept that there are certain Truths that the next 4 Councils proclaim that I have no issues with and do not contradict (the ones that the Byzantine Catholics and Eastern Orthodox publicly proclaim), and that the next 14 Councils mainly deal with issues of the Latin Church, which I do not oppose but recognize that they don’t really address my Church at all.

I beleive this is the prevalent view concerning councils among Eastern Catholics. I hold the first 7 pre eminent, but have no objections to the following Latin councils as they address latin issues (though I do hold Florence to be more important then the other latin councils).

 

[Formosus]

You claimed that there was at some point a “global council of all the churches”. There has never been any such a thing. Even the Ecumenical Councils were not global.

They weren’t global, but surely the participants in the first seven councils considered them to be global, since the participants all represented different episcopates within the Ecumene.