Ecumenical Councils and Eastern Catholics

[steve_b]

Dear brother Steve,

By definition, a Council isn’t Ecumenical without the approval of his brother bishops as well.

As your quote indicates, ecumenicity chiefly depends on the CO-OPERATION with the head, NOT the SOLE approval of the head.

I don’t see where he made that distinction.

Without the approval of the rest of the bishops AS WELL, there is no ecumenical status to a council for a Catholic. That’s what the Official Relatio of Vatican 1, Vatican 2, and our Canons state. The Absolutist Petrine view is not supported by Magisterial Catholic teaching.

Blessings,
Marduk

Canon law

Can. 338
§1. It is for the Roman Pontiff alone to convoke an ecumenical council, preside offer it personally or through others, transfer, suspend, or dissolve a council, and to approve its decrees.
§2. It is for the Roman Pontiff to determine the matters to be treated in a council and establish the order to be observed in a council. To the questions proposed by the Roman Pontiff, the council fathers can add others which are to be approved by the Roman Pontiff.

Can. 339
§1. All the bishops and only the bishops who are members of the college of bishops have the right and duty to take part in an ecumenical council with a deliberative vote.
§2. Moreover, some others who are not bishops can be called to an ecumenical council by the supreme authority of the Church, to whom it belongs to determine their roles in the council.

Can. 340 If the Apostolic See becomes vacant during the celebration of a council, the council is interrupted by the law itself until the new Supreme Pontiff orders it to be continued or dissolves it.

Can. 341
§1. The decrees of an ecumenical council do not have obligatory force unless they have been approved by the Roman Pontiff together with the council fathers, confirmed by him, and promulgated at his order.
§2. To have obligatory force, decrees which the college of bishops issues when it places a truly collegial action in another way initiated or freely accepted by the Roman Pontiff need the same confirmation and promulgation.

for a council to have ecumenical obligatory force, all collegial actions by the fathers need the confirmation and promulgation by the pope.(can 341) Without him, an ecumenical council (the fathers) can’t operate, confirm or promulgate their actions on their own.(can 340)

 

[mardukm]

Canon law
Can. 341
§1. The decrees of an ecumenical council do not have obligatory force unless they have been approved by the Roman Pontiff together with the council fathers, confirmed by him, and promulgated at his order.

Yes, as our canons state, the obligatory force of an Ecumenical Council depends AS MUCH on papal approval as the approval of the Council Fathers.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[Cecilianus]

Eastern Christians reject the legalistic silliness of speaking of “divine decrees”.

 

[steve_b]

Yes, as our canons state, the obligatory force of an Ecumenical Council depends AS MUCH on papal approval as the approval of the Council Fathers.

Blessings,
Marduk

Read it again.
approval by the other fathers ≠ confirm and promulgate.

It’s the pope alone who does the latter.

 

[mardukm]

Read it again.
approval by the other fathers ≠ confirm and promulgate.

It’s the pope alone who does the latter.

So are you saying that you disagree with the canon that the approval of his brother bishops is a necessary component of the ecumenicity of a Council?

The Pope alone confirms and promulgates, but are those the ONLY things that grant a Council its Ecumenical status? Please respond to that question directly. Your quotes don’t really do much good because they have never supported the Absolutist Petrine position.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[mardukm]

Dear brother Alex,

You know you really are so very wonderful!!!

I hope that a future Pope might one day declare the collegial character of infallibility as an infallible dogma!

The following was pronounced according to the infallibility of the Extraordinary Magisterium at Vatican 1:

• “Papal infallibility” is the help of the Holy Spirit given to the Pope to participate in the infallibilty of the Church.

The following was pronounced according to the infallibility of the Ordinary Magisterium at Vatican 1:

• The Pope cannot contradict the sensus fidei of the Church in making a definition (in the historic Proem of Pastor Aeternus).
• The exercise of papal infallibility is initiated by the appeal and solicitude of his brother bishops (in the historic Proem of Pastor Aeternus).
• Apostolic Canon 34 is the Rule of Faith even for definitions by the Pope (in the Official Relatio).

I don’t think we need a new dogma on the matter. However, we can probably use an Official Clarification, as HH JP2 of thrice-blessed memory did for the issue of Filioque - to be promulgated with the greatest PR that the Church can muster.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[steve_b]

So are you saying that you disagree with the canon that the approval of his brother bishops is a necessary component of the ecumenicity of a Council?

The Pope alone confirms and promulgates, but are those the ONLY things that grant a Council its Ecumenical status? Please respond to that question directly. Your quotes don’t really do much good because they have never supported the Absolutist Petrine position.

Blessings,
Marduk

The context is “ecumenical council”

the fathers need to approve of what thy propose in council, but it is the pope who confirms what they approve, and promulgates it. The fathers don’t confirm the council, or their proposals in council. They don’t promulgate what they approve in council. Without the pope, what the fathers approve has no obligatory force “ecumenically” and can’t be promulgated ecumenically.

 

[mardukm]

The context is “ecumenical council”

the fathers need to approve of what thy propose in council, but it is the pope who confirms what they approve, and promulgates it. The fathers don’t confirm the council, or their proposals in council. They don’t promulgate what they approve in council. Without the pope, what the fathers approve has no obligatory force “ecumenically” and can’t be promulgated ecumenically.

So you agree that the approval of his brother bishops is NECESSARY for an Ecumenical council to have authority.

This is different from your past claims that it is the Pope ALONE who grants an Ecumenical Council its authority and infallibility. I’m glad you have changed your position.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[Fone_Bone_2001]

Requisite numer of members (for ecumenical status)

“The number of bishops present required to constitute an Ecumenical council cannot be strictly defined, nor need it be so deigned, for ecumenicity chiefly depends on co-operation with the head of the Church, and only secondarily on the number of co-operators. It is physically impossible to bring together all the bishops of the world, nor is there any standard by which to determine even an approximate number, or proportion, of prelates necessary to secure ecumenicity. All should be invited, no one should be debarred, a somewhat considerable number of representatives of the several provinces and countries should be actually present; this may be laid down as a practicable theory. the essential constituent element of ecumenicity is less the proportion of bishops present to bishops absent, than the organic connection of the council with the head of the Church.”

newadvent.org/cathen/04423f.htm

If you think I disagree with you on that, you’ve completely missed my point, not to mention Marduk’s, whose distinction helps the point that this quotation makes: namely, that “ecumenical” needn’t mean “universally attended” but rather “universally binding.”
Alexander Roman;8145391:

One could also say that it was the West’s involvement with the councils through its representative delegates to ensure Western PARTICIPATION and later approval by Rome that gave them their ecumenical character.

That still would exclude Constantinople I (381), at which no Latin delegates were present.

Anyway, I see no reason for Catholics and Orthodox not to revisit the issue of the number of ecumenical councils (if it will help matters), though I personally am pretty confident in applying to Vatican I, Vatican II, etc. the very same logic that enables the Catholic Church to consider Constantinople I ecumenical…

the issues largely raised by them were of concern to the Latin West

Indeed. Even before I knew much at all about the East, I thought it was weird that so many supposedly “ecumenical” councils dealt with such implicitly local - even solely political - matters.

the so-called “union councils” of Lyons and Florence failed precisely because they were not union councils at all, but attempted impositions of Latin theology on the East.

Lyons II, sure, but Florence? Do you really think Florence was guilty of attempted Latinization? Why? My impression is that Florence clarified in many ways that eastern views were, in the eyes of the Latins, perfectly orthodox and acceptable. For instance, isn’t it true that at Lyons II the Latins tried to make the Greeks recite the filioque even in Greek, while at Florence the Greek position was affirmed?

Please correct me if I’m wrong and/or give examples, as I admit I do not know that much about these matters.

If I had to pick one I’d say the most self-evident was Papal Supremacy and Infallibility,

I’m not familiar with the eastern Catholic encyclicals you mentioned earlier, but in my experience eastern Catholics do indeed believe in both of these, especially understood properly according to their true collegial meaning. If they didn’t, why wouldn’t they still be Orthodox?

followed closely by the definition of original sin given by the council of trent

The burden of proof would be on the one who claims that the eastern Catholics reject some universally binding understanding of the doctrine and not just a western expression of it.

pre-destination (or at least i know the Orthodox arent fond of it)

Not even we believe in predestination in the way the Calvinist Protestants do. Unless the East is semi-Pelagian (which it’s not), what’s the problem? There’s a lot of legitimate wiggle room on this mysterious issue.

the indissoluability of marriage (again I may be wrong but I know the Orthodox disagree)

This is actually one of those rare big differences between the Orthodox and the eastern Catholics. They’re with us Latins on this matter, TrentCath, at least that’s what I’ve been consistently told…

indulgences

What makes you think they believe we’re wrong on indulgences? It doesn’t follow that they think this merely from the fact that they don’t use them… it’s just not a part of their soteriology. That doesn’t mean they think we’re wrong about them.

and then of course the Canon of Scripture

As others have pointed out, that’s never been an issue… let’s leave it alone.

 

[Vico]

I’ll be frank, this argument is compeltely illogical. He is the successor to St peter because he is Bishop of Rome, it is because he is bishop of Rome that he possesses supreme, plenary and general jurisidiction and for no other reason.

Due to orders the ordained have the power of governance (jurisdiction) in the Church. For each office, there are different limitations of that jurisdiciton and set of functions. For example a deacon, priest, bishop, metropolitan, and cardinal.

Illustration from CIC:

Can. 129 §1. Those who have received sacred orders are qualified, according to the norm of the prescripts of the law, for the power of governance, which exists in the Church by divine institution and is also called the power of jurisdiction.
Can. 131 §1. The ordinary power of governance is that which is joined to a certain office by the law itself; delegated, that which is granted to a person but not by means of an office.
Can. 135 §1. The power of governance is distinguished as legislative, executive, and judicial.
Can. 331 The bishop of the Roman Church, in whom continues the office given by the Lord uniquely to Peter …
Can. 333 §1. By virtue of his office, the Roman Pontiff not only possesses power over the universal Church but also obtains the primacy of ordinary power over all particular churches and groups of them. …
Can. 134 §1. In addition to the Roman Pontiff, by the title of ordinary are understood in the law diocesan bishops and others who, even if only temporarily, are placed offer some particular church or a community equivalent to it according to the norm of can. 368 as well as those who possess general ordinary executive power in them, namely, vicars general and episcopal vicars; likewise, for their own members, major superiors of clerical religious institutes of pontifical right and of clerical societies of apostolic life of pontifical right who at least possess ordinary executive power.
Can. 436 §3. The metropolitan has no other power of governance in the suffragan dioceses. He can perform sacred functions, however, as if he were a bishop in his own diocese in all churches, but he is first to inform the diocesan bishop if the church is the cathedral.

 

[Vico]

When the Pope gives an address “Urbi et Orbi”, it is implied that there is at least a logical distinction between his local duties to his diocese of Rome (“urbi”) and his universal duties to the Church (“orbi”).

I had not thought of that, thank you.

 

[TrentCath]

I’m not familiar with the eastern Catholic encyclicals you mentioned earlier, but in my experience eastern Catholics do indeed believe in both of these, especially understood properly according to their true collegial meaning. If they didn’t, why wouldn’t they still be Orthodox? If you read the First Vatican Council there is no collegial meaning to either Papal Supremacy or Infallibility, Vatican II (which it should be noted declared itself as binding only on matter that it explicitly declared as binding) contrary to popular belief made no change to this, as De Fide doctrine is of course irreformable.

The burden of proof would be on the one who claims that the eastern Catholics reject some universally binding understanding of the doctrine and not just a western expression of it. Which judging from this forum isn’t really hard to do…

Not even we believe in predestination in the way the Calvinist Protestants do. Unless the East is semi-Pelagian (which it’s not), what’s the problem? Its one thing to believe in different versions of a doctrine, another to reject it altogether There’s a lot of legitimate wiggle room on this mysterious issue.

This is actually one of those rare big differences between the Orthodox and the eastern Catholics. They’re with us Latins on this matter, TrentCath, at least that’s what I’ve been consistently told… Well thats nice to hear, does rather undermine the ‘orthodox in union with Rome’ idea though

What makes you think they believe we’re wrong on indulgences? It doesn’t follow that they think this merely from the fact that they don’t use them… it’s just not a part of their soteriology. That doesn’t mean they think we’re wrong about them. No comment

As others have pointed out, that’s never been an issue… let’s leave it alone. No, lets not leave what books are and aren’t the Word of God alone, silly me for suggesting that this could be at all important…

 

[TrentCath]

Due to orders the ordained have the power of governance (jurisdiction) in the Church. For each office, there are different limitations of that jurisdiciton and set of functions. For example a deacon, priest, bishop, metropolitan, and cardinal.

Illustration from CIC:

Can. 129 §1. Those who have received sacred orders are qualified, according to the norm of the prescripts of the law, for the power of governance, which exists in the Church by divine institution and is also called the power of jurisdiction.
Can. 131 §1. The ordinary power of governance is that which is joined to a certain office by the law itself; delegated, that which is granted to a person but not by means of an office.
Can. 135 §1. The power of governance is distinguished as legislative, executive, and judicial.
Can. 331 The bishop of the Roman Church, in whom continues the office given by the Lord uniquely to Peter …
Can. 333 §1. By virtue of his office, the Roman Pontiff not only possesses power over the universal Church but also obtains the primacy of ordinary power over all particular churches and groups of them. …
Can. 134 §1. In addition to the Roman Pontiff, by the title of ordinary are understood in the law diocesan bishops and others who, even if only temporarily, are placed offer some particular church or a community equivalent to it according to the norm of can. 368 as well as those who possess general ordinary executive power in them, namely, vicars general and episcopal vicars; likewise, for their own members, major superiors of clerical religious institutes of pontifical right and of clerical societies of apostolic life of pontifical right who at least possess ordinary executive power.
Can. 436 §3. The metropolitan has no other power of governance in the suffragan dioceses. He can perform sacred functions, however, as if he were a bishop in his own diocese in all churches, but he is first to inform the diocesan bishop if the church is the cathedral.

Nothing you’ve quoted here challenges anything I’ve said unless you’re suggesting Roman Pontiff and bishop mean two different things?

 

[Vico]

Nothing you’ve quoted here challenges anything I’ve said unless you’re suggesting Roman Pontiff and bishop mean two different things?

Yes they are a range of different offices for those with governance in the Church, so they are different.

 

[TrentCath]

Yes they are a range of different offices for those with governance in the Church, so they are different.

I never suggest there werent a range of different offices, but as regards the Pope there is only one, Bishop of Rome which is interchangeable with Roman pontiff and which clearly means supreme pontiff.

 

[Fone_Bone_2001]

If you read the First Vatican Council there is no collegial meaning to either Papal Supremacy or Infallibility, Vatican II (which it should be noted declared itself as binding only on matter that it explicitly declared as binding) contrary to popular belief made no change to this, as De Fide doctrine is of course irreformable.

Okay, we don’t need to argue about this now. Suffice it to say, I am confident that you are incorrect to suggest that many eastern Catholics reject papal supremacy and papal infallibility. If they did this, they would still be Orthodox. They want communion with Rome for a reason, TrentCath, and the eastern as well as the western part of the Catholic Church was represented at Vatican I, the very council which more precisely defined universal papal jurisdiction and papal infallibility.

Bottom line is this: I have every reason to believe that yes, eastern Catholics do believe that the pope can personally exercise the infallibility of the Church, and they do accept his supremacy.

And please digest well the meaning of this quote from our Holy Father, Pope Benedict XVI:

“After the Second Vatican Council, the impression arose that the pope really could do anything in liturgical matters … In fact, the First Vatican Council had in no way defined the pope as an absolute monarch. On the contrary, it presented him as the guarantor of obedience to the revealed Word. The pope’s authority is bound to the Tradition of faith … The authority of the pope is not unlimited; it is at the service of Sacred Tradition.”

The Spirit of the Liturgy, 2000

The pope is not an absolute monarch but rather the head bishop of the entire Catholic Church.

Which judging from this forum isn’t really hard to do…

No, it’s very hard to do. An eastern Catholic saying, “I don’t believe in original sin” doesn’t prove that he or she rejects the universal teaching. As frustrating as it sometimes can be to us Latins, easterns sometimes have the habit of using phrases like “original sin” to refer to the traditional western expression of the teaching.

To be honest, when it comes to things like the Immaculate Conception, it’s the Orthodox who mostly say, “We don’t believe in that.” Eastern Catholics, in my experience, almost always say instead something like, “That dogma holds no relevance for us, but of course we don’t reject it as necessary from a western point of view.”

Its one thing to believe in different versions of a doctrine, another to reject it altogether

Very true. Still, I have literally never seen any reason to think that the east - Catholic or Orthodox - is semi-Pelagian. Why should their distaste for Calvinist distortions make us needlessly suspicious of them?

Well thats nice to hear, does rather undermine the ‘orthodox in union with Rome’ idea though

Why do you think it undermines the “Orthodox in union with Rome” idea? The phrase doesn’t imply that they have to be exactly like their Orthodox counterparts; rather, it implies that they’re not giving up any part of their true Orthodox heritage, which is correct…

No, lets not leave what books are and aren’t the Word of God alone, silly me for suggesting that this could be at all important…

They acknowledge as Sacred Scripture every book that Trent teaches is divinely inspired. I don’t see a problem.

 

[Fone_Bone_2001]

TrentCath, I’m intrigued by your participation in this thread, because your positions seem in many ways like the Catholic equivalent of Orthodox polemics I often encounter online.

In my experience, it’s usually the Orthodox apologists who assert some degree of incompatibility between western and eastern beliefs and traditions, sometimes even overtly saying that they think the Catholic Church is heretical.

It’s usually the Catholic apologists who attempt to argue that the positions of east and west are quite compatible when properly understood - though of course by no means equivalent.

Do you really mean to suggest that the east - including those in full communion with the pope - rejects dogmatically defined teachings? I really don’t believe that’s the case.

I apologize if I have misrepresented your position here.

 

[TrentCath]

Okay, we don’t need to argue about this now. Suffice it to say, I am confident that you are incorrect to suggest that many eastern Catholics reject papal supremacy and papal infallibility. I’m glad you’re confident, I am confident that you are wrong. If they did this, they would still be Orthodox. They want communion with Rome for a reason, TrentCath, and the eastern as well as the western part of the Catholic Church was represented at Vatican I, the very council which more precisely defined universal papal jurisdiction and papal infallibility.

Bottom line is this: I have every reason to believe that yes, eastern Catholics do believe that the pope can personally exercise the infallibility of the Church, and they do accept his supremacy.

And please digest well the meaning of this quote from our Holy Father, Pope Benedict XVI:

“After the Second Vatican Council, the impression arose that the pope really could do anything in liturgical matters … In fact, the First Vatican Council had in no way defined the pope as an absolute monarch. On the contrary, it presented him as the guarantor of obedience to the revealed Word. The pope’s authority is bound to the Tradition of faith … The authority of the pope is not unlimited; it is at the service of Sacred Tradition.”

The Spirit of the Liturgy, 2000

The pope is not an absolute monarch but rather the head bishop of the entire Catholic Church.

I really don’t see the relevance of that entire quote to me. I well accept that the pope cannot do anything in liturgical matters, in fact I confess adherence to a group that believe as much… What I do object to is the idea of collegialism, its an idea thats inherently alien to Catholicism and alien to the De Fide teachings of the First Vatican Council

No, it’s very hard to do. An eastern Catholic saying, “I don’t believe in original sin” doesn’t prove that he or she rejects the universal teaching. As frustrating as it sometimes can be to us Latins, easterns sometimes have the habit of using phrases like “original sin” to refer to the traditional western expression of the teaching. **I’m not entirely sure what you mean by ‘the traditional western expression’ but I will say that the idea of us inheriting the guilt of Adam which every Eastern Catholic I’ve spoken to on here or book I’ve read on the subject rejects and indeed every authority I’ve encounted, is not an ‘expression’ its a Dogma. The Council of Trent defined that there was we inherited the ‘guilt of original sin’. **

To be honest, when it comes to things like the Immaculate Conception, it’s the Orthodox who mostly say, “We don’t believe in that.” Eastern Catholics, in my experience, almost always say instead something like, “That dogma holds no relevance for us, but of course we don’t reject it as necessary from a western point of view.”

Very true. Still, I have literally never seen any reason to think that the east - Catholic or Orthodox - is semi-Pelagian. Why should their distaste for Calvinist distortions make us needlessly suspicious of them? You misunderstand there is no distaste for Calvinist distortions, as was said on here, the concept is simply non-existent in Eastern Theology and as such Isn’t agreed with.

Why do you think it undermines the “Orthodox in union with Rome” idea? The phrase doesn’t imply that they have to be exactly like their Orthodox counterparts; rather, it implies that they’re not giving up any part of their true Orthodox heritage, which is correct…If Orthodoxy doesnt believe in pre-destination and we do, the list goes son…

They acknowledge as Sacred Scripture every book that Trent teaches is divinely inspired. I don’t see a problem. Because Trent ONLY acknowledged those books as scripture and no others, the additional books can be used to formulate dogmas and doctrines contrary to Catholic Teaching.

 

[Fone_Bone_2001]

I’m glad you’re confident, I am confident that you are wrong.

You haven’t seen the threads on here in which eastern Catholics defend Pastor Aeternus? I remember once an Orthodox poster quoted it scathingly - the really famous part which establishes that the pope has ordinary and immediate authority over every part of the Church and every one of the faithful, and in all matters not just doctrinal ones - and a couple eastern Catholics rose to its defense and asserted they had no problem with it whatsoever.

Eastern Catholics almost always disagree with neo-Ultramontanist distortions, but that doesn’t mean they don’t believe in classical Ultramontanism - or “the High Petrine” view. I am quite convinced that they do.

I really don’t see the relevance of that entire quote to me. I well accept that the pope cannot do anything in liturgical matters, in fact I confess adherence to a group that believe as much… What I do object to is the idea of collegialism, its an idea thats inherently alien to Catholicism and alien to the De Fide teachings of the First Vatican Council

There’s a big difference between conciliarism and collegiality. The former is definitely heresy and has been repeatedly rejected by the Church. The latter is thoroughly patristic and fully compatible with universal papal jurisdiction.

Unless an eastern Catholic asserts that an ecumenical council is higher than a pope, I see no reason to think them guilty of conciliarism. The idea of collegiality respects both the divinely established prerogatives of bishops - as individuals and especially as a unit, a whole - and the prerogatives of the pope, who is the supreme head of the body of bishops.

I’m not entirely sure what you mean by ‘the traditional western expression’ but I will say that the idea of us inheriting the guilt of Adam which every Eastern Catholic I’ve spoken to on here or book I’ve read on the subject rejects and indeed every authority I’ve encounted, is not an ‘expression’ its a Dogma. The Council of Trent defined that there was we inherited the ‘guilt of original sin’.

Of course it’s Catholic teaching that we inherit the guilt of Adam. But inherently legal language like “guilt”, when used in theology, is always used analogically. That’s what enables diversity on this matter.

I highly recommend this article for a great summary of the issue of original sin in the east and the west.

Because Trent ONLY acknowledged those books as scripture and no others, the additional books can be used to formulate dogmas and doctrines contrary to Catholic Teaching.

And yet no Catholic or Orthodox source lists the canon of Scripture as a disagreement. That leads me to believe that wiser minds than you or I have found no barrier to unity on this matter.

 

[TrentCath]

You haven’t seen the threads on here in which eastern Catholics defend Pastor Aeternus? I remember once an Orthodox poster quoted it scathingly - the really famous part which establishes that the pope has ordinary and immediate authority over every part of the Church and every one of the faithful, and in all matters not just doctrinal ones - and a couple eastern Catholics rose to its defense and asserted they had no problem with it whatsoever. No what I have seen is Eastern Catholics claim repeatedly that their church is self-governing and doesn’t need Rome’s interference unless it falls into heresy.

Eastern Catholics almost always disagree with neo-Ultramontanist distortions, but that doesn’t mean they don’t believe in classical Ultramontanism - or “the High Petrine” view. I am quite convinced that they do.

There’s a big difference between conciliarism and collegiality. The former is definitely heresy and has been repeatedly rejected by the Church. The latter is thoroughly patristic and fully compatible with universal papal jurisdiction. I’m afraid thats rather questionable

Unless an eastern Catholic asserts that an ecumenical council is higher than a pope, I see no reason to think them guilty of conciliarism. The idea of collegiality respects both the divinely established prerogatives of bishops - as individuals and especially as a unit, a whole - and the prerogatives of the pope, who is the supreme head of the body of bishops.

Of course it’s Catholic teaching that we inherit the guilt of Adam. But inherently legal language like “guilt”, when used in theology, is always used analogically. That’s what enables diversity on this matter. Guilt is guilt, look up the dictionary definition of the word. It’s incompatible with the idea we only inherit a ‘pre-disposition’ to sin

I highly recommend this article for a great summary of the issue of original sin in the east and the west.

And yet no Catholic or Orthodox source lists the canon of Scripture as a disagreement. That leads me to believe that wiser minds than you or I have found no barrier to unity on this matter. Silence on an issue is not evidence per se