Ecumenical Councils and Eastern Catholics

[mardukm]

Dear brother Cecilianus,

I’m going to disagree with you here. That’s like saying if a bishop is superior to a synod of priests in his see, why has any synod ever been called?

The Pope is superior to Ecumenical Councils in the sense that he ratifies and seals their decisions, and when they are held in the West (if we are to call them ecumenical councils) he calls them and guides the debate. This does not make the council unnecessary or detract from collegiality any more than the bishop’s authority over his see makes other priests unnecessary.

I know what you are saying, but I don’t think it is expressed correctly. It cannot be said that the Pope is “superior” to an Ecumenical Council because he is a member of the Ecumenical Council. That’s like saying that the Pope is superior to himself, which is illogical, don’t you think? I think what you are trying to say is “WITHIN an Ecumenical Council, the Pope as head bishop has the highest rank among the bishops”.

Comments? If I have misunderstood and misrepresented you, please forgive me.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[malphono]

I’m going to disagree with you here. That’s like saying if a bishop is superior to a synod of priests in his see, why has any synod ever been called?

Actually, that’s not what I had in mind. I’ll bend my disclaimer here, just for the sake of clarity.

Anyway, no, I cannot at all say that it’s the same. A “synod” of that nature has no authority. The bishop does. The “synod” (and of course it’s really not a “synod”) is merely consultative. The bishop may, if he so chooses, accept recommendations from it, but in and of themselves, they are nothing more than recommendations. And the same is true of the so-called “Synods” held periodically in Rome. They’re not Councils and have no authority. The Bishop of Rome can choose to accept and act upon things, or he can choose to ignore them. I suppose I’d call both examples the equivalent of the “staff meetings” some companies insist on called periodically. Whoever is in charge and calling the meeting can (and in my experience, usually does) ignore its recommendations/deliberations. They’re hardly more than window dressing to make the staff “feel good” and I see the ecclesiastical examples above to be quite the same.

The Pope is superior to Ecumenical Councils in the sense that he ratifies and seals their decisions, and when they are held in the West (if we are to call them ecumenical councils) he calls them and guides the debate. This does not make the council unnecessary or detract from collegiality any more than the bishop’s authority over his see makes other priests unnecessary.

In the usual, stale, “Absolutist” view, the Pope is considered “superior” to an Oecumenical Council (or whatever … I agree with you on the naming conventions) not because he is part of the Council but precisely because he is above the Council. Taking that down to the quick, it says to me why bother with the trouble and expense of an Oecumenical Council when “the boss” can do it all alone?

But can he? Of course the difference here (from the above “synod” examples) is that an Oecumenical Council does, in fact, have authority, and that authority is not subordinate to the Bishop of Rome. Let’s take a hypothetical example and say a Council was in session. The Bishop of Rome was opposed to a particular Conciliar Decree that was voted and approved by a 90% margin of the assembled bishops. Could he simply throw the decree in file 13? Or does the principle of collegiality obligate him to promulgate it?

Does it make more sense now?

 

[Cecilianus]

Dear brother Cecilianus,

I know what you are saying, but I don’t think it is expressed correctly. It cannot be said that the Pope is “superior” to an Ecumenical Council because he is a member of the Ecumenical Council. That’s like saying that the Pope is superior to himself, which is illogical, don’t you think? I think what you are trying to say is “WITHIN an Ecumenical Council, the Pope as head bishop has the highest rank among the bishops”.

Comments? If I have misunderstood and misrepresented you, please forgive me.

Blessings,
Marduk

Dear brother Marduk,

Thanks for the correction, as always.

 

[Cecilianus]

Actually, that’s not what I had in mind. I’ll bend my disclaimer here, just for the sake of clarity.

Anyway, no, I cannot at all say that it’s the same. A “synod” of that nature has no authority. The bishop does. The “synod” (and of course it’s really not a “synod”) is merely consultative. The bishop may, if he so chooses, accept recommendations from it, but in and of themselves, they are nothing more than recommendations. And the same is true of the so-called “Synods” held periodically in Rome. They’re not Councils and have no authority. The Bishop of Rome can choose to accept and act upon things, or he can choose to ignore them. I suppose I’d call both examples the equivalent of the “staff meetings” some companies insist on called periodically. Whoever is in charge and calling the meeting can (and in my experience, usually does) ignore its recommendations/deliberations. They’re hardly more than window dressing to make the staff “feel good” and I see the ecclesiastical examples above to be quite the same.

In the usual, stale, “Absolutist” view, the Pope is considered “superior” to an Oecumenical Council (or whatever … I agree with you on the naming conventions) not because he is part of the Council but precisely because he is above the Council. Taking that down to the quick, it says to me why bother with the trouble and expense of an Oecumenical Council when “the boss” can do it all alone?

But can he? Of course the difference here (from the above “synod” examples) is that an Oecumenical Council does, in fact, have authority, and that authority is not subordinate to the Bishop of Rome. Let’s take a hypothetical example and say a Council was in session. The Bishop of Rome was opposed to a particular Conciliar Decree that was voted and approved by a 90% margin of the assembled bishops. Could he simply throw the decree in file 13? Or does the principle of collegiality obligate him to promulgate it?

Does it make more sense now?

I would say the principle of collegiality does not obligate him to promulgate a doctrine, as seen by the Papal rejections of individual councils (the Robber Council of Ephesus; the Council in Trullo insofar as it applied to the West) and individual issues within councils (contraception, for example, in which Pope Paul VI bucked the recommendation of the committee he had appointed to study the issue).

I will take Marduk’s phrasing that the Pope has the highest rank within an ecumenical council, rather than superior to it, and even say that he has a place superior to the other bishops in the ecumenical council. To be sure, the “boss” could do it all alone, but the “boss” may not know the answer, and while he could define an issue motu proprio as he did with the two Marian dogmas, it is generally better to see what the consensus of the Church is. The Pope isn’t a prophet having the Holy Spirit whisper dogma in his ear. He may not know what the Orthodox dogma is without having a council to discuss the matter.

 

[NinjaSnark]

Okay… some thoughts:

Daer brother TrentCath,

Forgive my harshness, but I’m just concerned since the OP is an inquirer into the Catholic Faith. The group to which you adhere is not even a formal part of the Catholic Church, and I hope sister Andrea realizes that.

Yes, I am aware of the position of the SSPX.

I am assuming that the OP presented her question here in the ECF so she could see what the Eastern/Oriental Catholic position is. Your understanding of the teaching of the Catholic Church is noted, and presents a good sounding board against which we non-Latins can express our own belief.

Correct. As my OP stated, I was interested in the Eastern/Oriental position on Ecumenical Councils (their number, their doctrines, etc.)

Sister Andrea (NinjaSnark) if you are reading this, please understand that, despite brother TrentCath’s Absolutist position (which seems to be the position of the schismatic group to which he adheres), and notwithstanding the matter of how perfectly the Catholic Church has lived up to the ideal, Eastern and Oriental Catholics generally adhere to the collegial understanding of the Church, and the very great majority of us (along with many Latin Catholics) believe this collegial understanding is perfectly consistent with, if not the actual teaching of, the Vatican Councils, as well as all prior authorities in the whole history of the Catholic Church.

Blessings,
Marduk

Thanks for your concern. For clarity’s sake, I will say that I am very much in favor of the free expression of legitimate traditions- east and west. Without going into it too much (since I have no desire to cause offense to TrentCath or anyone else who may be reading), I will just say that this is probably facilitated by my Protestant background (where there is much diversity, but no unity) and alone makes me unsympathetic to the SSPX. That isn’t to say that I can’t understand their loyalty to their Latin tradition in the face of liturgical abuses (and I mean actual abuses like clown masses, not the NO Mass), however I do see the irony (as Ghosty pointed out) of a schismatic group pointing fingers at Eastern Catholics in full communion with Rome, even if TrentCath does not (apologies, TrentCath if that offends you).

Back to the point of the thread:

Marduk- I am curious if you could elaborate on this point that you made in post #144:

A possible solution (for your own personal growth and peace) is to distinguish between “Ecumenicity” and “infallibility.” Many local councils in the history of the Church have affirmed infallible teachings though they were not considered “Ecumenical.” This is a solution proposed by many Oriental Orthodox, who, though they would not likely accept the rest after Ephesus as “Ecumenical,” are willing to accept the infallibility of the doctrinal teachings flowing from those later Councils.

It is, after all, the doctrines that really count. Would you agree with that?

I agree that it is the doctrines that count (the matter of theological expression of those doctrines only insofar as they express the doctrine in question in an orthodox way). However, how do you distinguish between “ecumenicity” and “infallibility”?

 

[malphono]

I would say the principle of collegiality does not obligate him to promulgate a doctrine, as seen by the Papal rejections of individual councils (the Robber Council of Ephesus; the Council in Trullo insofar as it applied to the West) and individual issues within councils (contraception, for example, in which Pope Paul VI bucked the recommendation of the committee he had appointed to study the issue).

Well, it looks like we may be having a difference of opinion. :sad_yes:

Whether the Councils noted were fully legitimate Oecumenical Councils in the the place is questionable (which is similar to what can be said for the last 2 Councils, if not the last … how many is that? 14? 15? But I digress). And the contraception issue had nothing to do with any Council per-se.

I will take Marduk’s phrasing that the Pope has the highest rank within an ecumenical council, rather than superior to it, and even say that he has a place superior to the other bishops in the ecumenical council. To be sure, the “boss” could do it all alone, but the “boss” may not know the answer, and while he could define an issue motu proprio as he did with the two Marian dogmas, it is generally better to see what the consensus of the Church is. The Pope isn’t a prophet having the Holy Spirit whisper dogma in his ear. He may not know what the Orthodox dogma is without having a council to discuss the matter.

I can agree about the “rank” issue within a Council insofar as it reflects primacy (for my purposes, within the “High Petrine view”). But, being one who dreams of the restoration of the reality of the First Millennium, I cannot agree with the “boss can do it alone” proposition. And anyway, supposedly even the definitions of the two Marian dogmas were done with consultation if not actual consensus. And of course I still hold that the authority of a Council is not subordinate to that of the Bishop of Rome. The concept of collegiality, it seems to me, says that there is a certain interdependence involved.

 

[TrentCath]

Which is exactly my point. You had quoted an article by Fr. Azkoul saying all bishops are equal by nature, and calling that heresy.

You’re misusing the word “illogical” again. I do not profess conciliarism; end of story.

**

1. 
   *]That isnt all that the article says it goes on to criticise the papacy, not to mention you have not addressed either of the enyclicals…
   *]I disagree and unless you’re retracting your previous statement to that effect, you do I’m afraid profess conciliarism
   
   **

 

[TrentCath]

And the fact that the group to which you adhere is not part of the Catholic Church proper means that your views do not represent the Catholic Church. Brothers Cecilianus and Ghosty, and others, have expressed the teaching of the Catholic Church correctly. The fact that you cannot distinguish between collegiality and conciliarism is itself highly telling that you have not imbibed the true teaching of the Catholic Church on these matters.

Blessings,
Marduk

**Lets examine this statement clearly you make two assertions here:

1. That the group to which I adhere is not a part of the Catholic Church
   2)As such my views do not reflect the views of the Catholic Church

As regards the first assertion, it is pure fantasy. You will not find a single document that describes the SSPX as being outside the Catholic church or no longer being Catholic. You will find some that talk of them not being in full communion but that as I’ve said before is something entirely different/

As regards the second assertion, there is a twofold problem:

First, it is an ad hominem logical fallacy. You adhere to the SSPX, the status of their communion of the church is unclear/I believe they are schismatic, ergo you are wrong.

Second, numerous prominent theologians, popes and council’s have interpreted the sources I have referred to in the way I have for hundreds of years.**

 

[TrentCath]

Okay… some thoughts:

…(where there is much diversity, but no unity) and alone makes me unsympathetic to the SSPX. That isn’t to say that I can’t understand their loyalty to their Latin tradition in the face of liturgical abuses (and I mean actual abuses like clown masses, not the NO Mass), however I do see the irony (as Ghosty pointed out) of a schismatic group pointing fingers at Eastern Catholics in full communion with Rome, even if TrentCath does not (apologies, TrentCath if that offends you).

No offence taken, I’m a former evangelical christian myself so I have some idea of what you’re going through

 

[Cecilianus]

**

1. 
   *]That isnt all that the article says it goes on to criticise the papacy, not to mention you have not addressed either of the enyclicals…
   *]I disagree and unless you’re retracting your previous statement to that effect, you do I’m afraid profess conciliarism
   
   **

1. 
   An ecumenical council excommunicated Pope Honorius. That is a historical fact, and the excommunication has never been lifted by the Church. Acknowledging this fact is not a heresy.
   
   “Conciliarism” has a very specific meaning within the context of the Great Western Schism and is a heresy that I do not subscribe to.
   
   Malphono: The pope never acts alone. When he speaks he speaks in the name of the whole Church, and when he speaks alone it is with the implicit consent of the whole Church, as part of the ordinary Magisterium.

 

[Cecilianus]

’ A council is not “ecumenical” because of the exterior legality of its composition (since this factor does not oblige the Holy Spirit to speak through a council), but because of the purity of the Faith of the Gospels which it professes…

This is true. The Holy Spirit did not speak through the latrocinium of Ephesus.

There is no “pope,” superior to the Councils who must ratify them…’ This is quote from ‘I Believe…: A Short Exposition of Orthodox Doctrine’ which can be read in full here

In other words, an ecumenical council does not receive its authority from any extrinsic, superior source. As we have already beaten into you, the Pope is part of the Ecumenical Council.

Logically if the pope is NOT superior to an ecumenical council then either the council is superior to or equal in authority to him both of which are forms of conciliarism.

This is not logical at all. If you took logic in college you would have learned the 19 valid syllogisms, and this isn’t one of them, and nor is it any other logical form such as a dilemma or hypothetical or modal syllogism. You can’t have a syllogism with just one premise.

The problem is your assumption that the Pope is separate from an ecumenical council - a denial of collegiality. The council is not superior to the Pope (though one Pope may be judged by a future council, as Honorius was) nor equal in authority to him (what would happen if they conflicted?), because it does not function separately from the Pope.

We can see a similar view espoused here ‘The Orthodox Church teaches that all bishops are equal. To be sure, there are different ranks of bishops (patriarch, archbishop, metropolitan, bishop); nevertheless, a bishop is a bishop. Such differences apply to the administration of a church or group of churches, not to the nature of the bishop. The president of a synod of bishops is called archbishop (Greek custom) or metropolitan (Russian custom).’ This comes from ‘WHAT ARE THE DIFFERENCES BETWEEN ORTHODOXY AND ROMAN CATHOLICISM?
By Father Michael Azkoul’ which you can read here Logically again if all bishops are equal then an ecumenical council or even a mere council would have more authority than the pope, this again is conciliarism.

You already made the distinction between “equal (in jurisdiction)” and “equal by nature”. The fact that all bishops are equal by nature does NOT logically imply that truth is determined by a numbers game - the more votes wins - an approach no Orthodox have ever taken (since they unanimously reject heretical synods).

You sure have a lot of formally invalid arguments attached to your adverb “logically”.

The view is espoused again in The Patriarchal Encyclical of 1895 which states 'But having recourse to the fathers and the Ecumenical Synods of the Church of the first nine centuries, we are fully persuaded that the Bishop of Rome was never considered as the supreme authority and infallible head of the Church, and that every bishop is head and president of his own particular Church, subject only to the synodical ordinances and decisions of the Church universal as being alone infallible, the Bishop of Rome being in no wise excepted from this rule, as Church history shows. ’
The encyclical in question can be read here

And again in the Encyclical of the Eastern Patriarchs of 1848 which states ‘… Since however the pope, consulting brevity, appears to have omitted this most necessary point, and the manifest proof that an Ecumenical Synod is not only above the pope but above any council of his, we will explain to the public the matter as it really happened.’ That encyclical can be read here

Frankly the list of sources I can give to demonstrate that they do in fact subscribe to this view is almost limitless, but I believe these four will suffice.

I do not regard these encyclicals as authoritative. They are excuses meant to buttress schism from Rome, ones radically at odds with the historical collegial method Orthodoxy has always used. These are not monarchical decrees defining the Orthodox faith once and for all - Orthodoxy does not work like that. They are false, so I reject them.

You complain that I haven’t addressed those four sources, so here you are.

 

[Ghosty]

**Lets examine this statement clearly you make two assertions here:

1. That the group to which I adhere is not a part of the Catholic Church
   2)As such my views do not reflect the views of the Catholic Church

As regards the first assertion, it is pure fantasy. You will not find a single document that describes the SSPX as being outside the Catholic church or no longer being Catholic. You will find some that talk of them not being in full communion but that as I’ve said before is something entirely different/

As regards the second assertion, there is a twofold problem:

First, it is an ad hominem logical fallacy. You adhere to the SSPX, the status of their communion of the church is unclear/I believe they are schismatic, ergo you are wrong.

Second, numerous prominent theologians, popes and council’s have interpreted the sources I have referred to in the way I have for hundreds of years.**

I realize that this isn’t an SSPX thread, but I think this bears clarification given the discussion regarding Eastern Catholics and Orthodox.

The Eastern Orthodox, and even Protestants, are also spoken of as not having “full Communion”, not simply not having any Communion with the Catholic Church at all. The Catechism of the Catholic Church says this:

838 "The Church knows that she is joined in many ways to the baptized who are honored by the name of Christian, but do not profess the Catholic faith in its entirety or have not preserved unity or communion under the successor of Peter."322 Those "who believe in Christ and have been properly baptized are put in a certain, although imperfect, communion with the Catholic Church."323 With the Orthodox Churches, this communion is so profound "that it lacks little to attain the fullness that would permit a common celebration of the Lord’s Eucharist."324

The Latin Code of Canon Law says this about Eastern Orthodox:

§3. Catholic ministers administer the sacraments of penance, Eucharist, and anointing of the sick licitly to members of Eastern Churches which do not have full communion with the Catholic Church if they seek such on their own accord and are properly disposed. This is also valid for members of other Churches which in the judgment of the Apostolic See are in the same condition in regard to the sacraments as these Eastern Churches.

So saying “not in full Communion” is precisely the same status as that of the Eastern Orthodox, and even Protestant Christians. As for “not being outside the Catholic Church”, here’s what the aforementioned motu proprio states about the SSPX:

However, the doctrinal questions obviously remain and until they are clarified the Society has no canonical status in the Church and its ministers cannot legitimately exercise any ministry.

So the SSPX has no status within the Church, and serves no ministry, just like the Eastern Orthodox. If the Eastern Orthodox are schismatic, then so is the SSPX, and if the SSPX is not schismatic, then neither are the Eastern Orthodox. I’ll leave it to you decide which is which, as it makes no real difference to me (in fact, as an Easterner my views would likely be much more sympathetic to you and the SSPX in terms of the definition of “schism”, though I don’t know if you’d return the favor with regards to the Eastern Orthodox).

My point in bringing this up is not to sling mud at you, nor the SSPX, but to highlight a very real gap in understanding that exists. The views you express are at odds with the living reality of the Catholic Church, and that is why the Pope has said that there are real doctrinal differences between the SSPX and the Catholic Church. Perhaps some Eastern Catholics are similarly mistaken, and fall better into the Eastern Orthodox “camp” than they do into the Catholic, but so far we don’t have a censure from Rome on the matter so I’m leaving that alone.

Simply put, the Catholic Church does not hold as firmly to the wording of certain theologies as you seem to assume, and there is room for divergent expression of Dogmatic Truths. This fact, I believe, is part of what led to the split with the SSPX and the Catholic Church; the SSPX held to a stricter reading of Church documents than the Church Herself does. This conversation, I think, springs from this doctrinal gap.

Peace and God bless!

 

[Fone_Bone_2001]

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.

Well I personally think they’re totally justified in saying that. Their stating such things doesn’t mean they deny papal supremacy… they simply want the autonomy of their churches respected, that’s all.

Dear Fone Bone,

It is not my intention to correct, but to discuss!

Thank you for your gracious and detailed response concerning the Council of Florence. I appreciate it, Alex!

Dear Fone Bone,

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

But the decrees went to Rome and Rome was involved, and would have to have been, as the patriarchate of the West in order for that council to be “ecumenical.”

One problem in those days was that the West had but one Apostolic See, namely Rome, founded by St Peter.

But in the East, there were several Sees founded by St Peter and other Apostles, including the Churches of many towns and villages.

For the East, the primacy of Rome was based more on the fact that St Peter was martyred there and that his relics were there than the fact that Rome’s Church was “founded by St Peter” since if that standard alone were used, there would have been a list of churches all claiming to be “Peter’s See.”

In the ecumenical Councils of the first millennium, the bishop of Rome had the first seat or cathedra as “first among equals.” This is shown by the fact that the sixth Council, I believe, actually upbraided the Church of Rome for changing the universal weekly fasting rule. Tradition could override even papal authority . . .

But Rome’s approval in those Councils had more to do with ensuring ecumenicity on the basis of Rome’s participation in one way or another and not necessarily if delegates were actually present.

Alex

Oh, I agree. The fact that not every part of the Church needs to be represented at a council for it to be or to become “ecumenical” is the reason I personally consider Vatican I, Vatican II, and perhaps a few other post-Schism western councils to be ecumenical as well.

I haven’t studied these matters enough for my opinion to really matter, but from what I do know, Marduk’s position makes the most sense to me.

(An example of something that I’m essentially ignorant on and which really confuses me: the Photius/Constantinople IV stuff)

The fact is, the word translated into English as “guilt” in Trent’s decree is not culpa, but reus. What the Eastern (as well as the Oriental) Tradition rejects is inheritance of guilt as culpa. Incidentally, Trent did not teach that we inherit Adam’s culpa – only that we inherit Adam’s reus. So it would be false to claim that the Eastern or Oriental Traditions reject what Trent taught.

Thank you! More evidence of what I’ve never found a good reason to question at all - namely, that the eastern position on this matter is perfectly orthodox.

I think he’s saying that the Pope does not govern the Church as a universal diocese or universal archdiocese but that his universal jurisdiction over the church differs in function from the jurisdiction of a bishop over his diocese.

Wow, nicely put, Cavaradossi! I wholeheartedly agree.

Aside from the example brother Cecilianus gave, I can think of two others off-hand:

1. The prerogative to grant a plenary faculty to hear confession to a priest;
2. Jurisdiction over religious societies of episcopal privilege.

To be sure, we are not sayng that a head bishop (whether Metropolitan, Patriarch, Pope, etc.) absolutely cannot do these things in those dioceses. What we are saying is that if a diocese has an orthodox Catholic proper ordinary, a head bishop does not have the right to impede the authority of that proper ordinary. The head bishop can perform similar functions in a particular diocese if and only if the proper ordinary of that particular diocese has been impeded (e.g., became a heretic, schismatic, imprisoned by a secular authority, etc.).

Blessings,
Marduk

Daer brother TrentCath,

Forgive my harshness, but I’m just concerned since the OP is an inquirer into the Catholic Faith. The group to which you adhere is not even a formal part of the Catholic Church, and I hope sister Andrea realizes that.

I am assuming that the OP presented her question here in the ECF so she could see what the Eastern/Oriental Catholic position is. Your understanding of the teaching of the Catholic Church is noted, and presents a good sounding board against which we non-Latins can express our own belief.

Sister Andrea (NinjaSnark) if you are reading this, please understand that, despite brother TrentCath’s Absolutist position (which seems to be the position of the schismatic group to which he adheres), and notwithstanding the matter of how perfectly the Catholic Church has lived up to the ideal, Eastern and Oriental Catholics generally adhere to the collegial understanding of the Church, and the very great majority of us (along with many Latin Catholics) believe this collegial understanding is perfectly consistent with, if not the actual teaching of, the Vatican Councils, as well as all prior authorities in the whole history of the Catholic Church.

Blessings,
Marduk

And I just want to sign on as well as one of many Latin Catholics who agrees with the understanding of collegiality as expressed on this thread by Marduk, Ghosty, and others.

 

[mardukm]

Dear sister Andrea,

Thank you for the question.

Marduk- I am curious if you could elaborate on this point that you made in post #144:

I agree that it is the doctrines that count (the matter of theological expression of those doctrines only insofar as they express the doctrine in question in an orthodox way). However, how do you distinguish between “ecumenicity” and “infallibility”?

All ecumenical councils, so called and so determined, teach infallibly. But not all councils that teach infallibly are necessarily ecumenical.

Two examples for consideration:
(1) The western Council of Orange which condemned semi-pelagianism, was confirmed by the Pope. So it proposed infallible teaching. But no one has ever pretended that this Council had ecumenical status.

(2) The Council of Sardica was both confirmed by the Pope and actually INTENDED by all who supported it, including the emperor who convened it, to have ecumenical status. But it never did obtain ecumenical status.

From these examples, together with a consideration of the ecumenicity of the 7 Ecumenical Councils of antiquity, it is obvious that the Church has always understood that though the Pope’s confirmation is a necessary condition for a Council to be considered “ecumenical,” it was not a sufficient condition for it. Hence, first of all, It appears that for a Council to be considered “ecumenical,” the participation of at least representatives from the patriarchal Churches must be evident (which is why I personally consider Florence, V1, and V2 as Ecumenical).

Secondly, on the premise that every Council considered “ecumenical” is necessarily infallible, it stands to reason that a truly “ecumenical council” must be convened primarily (if not only) to decide on a matter of Faith and/or moral doctrine. This would preclude several of the Western councils that Latins call “ecumenical” because they were primarily called for merely disciplinary issues within the Latin Church. This is the reason why I question the ecumenical status of the reunion council of Lyons, for my admittedly not-too-thorough studies of it leads me to believe that its main impetus was primarily political (I may change my mind on it at some time in the future when I have the time and will to study it more closely). For the same reason, I question the ecumenical status of the so-called 8th Ecum, primarily convened to settle the ecclesiastical dispute with St. Photius.

Thirdly, on the same premise above, it stands to reason that the matter of Faith and/or moral doctrine must be relevant for the ENTIRE Church, not just a portion of it. This is why, IMO, the Council of Orange never obtained ecumenical status, and why some of the councils that dealt with merely local Latin theological problems (e.g., Albigensians, Jansensists, etc.) can’t be considered truly ecumenical. For the same reason, though there have been plenary Eastern Councils that Eastern Catholics accept as authoritative on doctrinal issues (councils that occurred before coming into Catholic communion), these Councils nevertheless dealt only with LOCAL Eastern doctinal issues and can’t be considered “ecumenical.” On the other hand, this is the primary reason I regard the Council of Trent as truly Ecumenical. Protestantism was/is a truly ubiquitous problem for the ENTIRE Church, and to this day, even Orthodox (both Eastern and Oriental) will utilize the arguments that Trent proposed against the Protestants as a solid bulwark against their errors. (Just a thought - maybe in the future, in a reunited Church, the “Council of Trent” might be called the “Council of Trent-Jerusalem,” in reference to the EO Council of Jerusalem which was called to deal with the problem of Protestantism and which basically borrowed from the arguments of Trent against the Protestants. Just a thought ).

Now, that is my PERSONAL criterion. You might find yoiurself formulating your own as you gain more knowledge of the patristic, orthodox, Catholic Faith and its history. Whatever else may be said about which Councils are “ecumenical,” it is certain that for a Catholic to be a Catholic, the infallible Faith taught by ALL Catholic Councils, ecumenical or not, must be adhered to with the assent of faith.

Did I answer your question?

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[mardukm]

And I just want to sign on as well as one of many Latin Catholics who agrees with the understanding of collegiality as expressed on this thread by Marduk, Ghosty, and others.

Awesome, brother!

Abundant blessings,
Marduk

 

[mardukm]

Dear brother Cecilianus,

To be sure, the “boss” could do it all alone, but the “boss” may not know the answer, and while he could define an issue motu proprio as he did with the two Marian dogmas, it is generally better to see what the consensus of the Church is. The Pope isn’t a prophet having the Holy Spirit whisper dogma in his ear. He may not know what the Orthodox dogma is without having a council to discuss the matter.

The OP is about the Ecumenical Council. This particular issue you bring up was already thoroughly discussed in a previous thread (forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=569290). I don’t want to discuss this here aside from making the following comments in response to the highlighted portion of your statement above:

What do you make of the following statement from the Official Relatio of Vatican 1?
It is true that the agreement of the present preaching of the whole Magisterium of the Church united with its head is the Rule of Faith even for definitions by the Pope.

The Official Relatio is the official interpretation of the Vatican Decree on Infallibility as expressed by Bishop Gasser. It was distributed to the Council Fathers two days before the final voting, and whatever it was the Fathers voted for, they voted for it with the interpretation of the Official Relatio in mind. It appears the Fathers of Vatican 1 did not understand the consensus of the Church as a mere option that was simply “generally better” to obtain. The Official Relatio says that this consensus is the Rule of Faith. To be sure, the Official Relatio did not necessitate direct consultation with the bishops in order to obtain this consensus (i.e., the consensus could be determined by means other than direct consultation with the bishops), but calling the consensus the Rule of Faith even for definitions by the Pope would indicate that the consensus - in the mind of the V1 Fathers - was a necessity. I would appreciate your comments (let’s discuss it in this thread for a little bit, and if it turns out the discussion becomes extensive, we might think about transferring the discussion to the other thread that I mentioned earlier).

The statement from the Canon of the Decree on Infallibility (i.e., “such definitions of the Roman Pontiff are therefore irreformable by their very nature, not because of the consensus of the Church”), in case it crosses your mind, was thoroughly discussed in the thread mentioned earlier. Here is a recap of the matter from that thread:forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=8055140&postcount=279. The discussion begins on page 16 of that thread, post#235, if you are willing to read through it (forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?p=8042522#post8042522).

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[TrentCath]

This is true. The Holy Spirit did not speak through the latrocinium of Ephesus.

**Sadly if a council declares itself as ecumenical and is acccepted as such by the Pope who ratifies its decrees, then it IS ecumenical. If you read the quote in its entirity ‘A council is not “ecumenical” because of the exterior legality of its composition (since this factor does not oblige the Holy Spirit to speak through a council), but because of the purity of the Faith of the Gospels which it professes. “Truth (i.e. conformity to the Apostolic Tradition) judges the Councils,” says St. Maximus the Confessor. There is no “pope,” superior to the Councils who must ratify them, but rather it is the conscience of the Church, which, being infallible, does or does not recognize the authenticity of a Council, and which does or does not acknowledge that the voice of the Holy Spirit has spoken. Hence, there have been councils which, though fulfilling the exterior conditions of ecumenicity, were nonethless rejected by the Church. The Church’s criterion, according to St. Vincent of Lerins, is the Church.’ it is clear that the author rejects the teaching of the church and puts forward the absurd idea that for a council to be ecumenical the entire church must accept it as such. This is in contrast with the clear teaching of the church which states that for a council to be ecumenical it requires ONLY the pope to accept and ratify it as such.

As for the first quote that you claim to respond to it is clear that you did not bother to read the source in its entirity, it states 'The Roman Catholic view of the Church (ecclesiology) differs from the Orthodox teaching on this subject in several ways.

The Latins teach that the visible head of the Church is the Pope, the successor to St. Peter, who was appointed to that sacred position by the Lord Himself with the words, "Thou art Peter and upon this rock I shall build my Church . . . " (Matt. 16:18).

The Pope is, then, “the Bishop of the Catholic Church,” her teacher, the vicar (agent, deputy) of Christ on earth. He is the interpreter of the Christian Tradition. When he speaks for the whole Church (ex cathedra), the Holy Spirit does not permit him to err. He is, therefore, infallible on matters of morals and doctrine. Other bishops are his lieutenants. He is the symbol of the episcopate’s unity.

The Orthodox Church teaches that all bishops are equal. To be sure, there are different ranks of bishops (patriarch, archbishop, metropolitan, bishop); nevertheless, a bishop is a bishop. Such differences apply to the administration of a church or group of churches, not to the nature of the bishop. The president of a synod of bishops is called archbishop (Greek custom) or metropolitan (Russian custom).

According to Latin ecclesiology, each local parish is part of the universal or whole Church. The totality of Catholic parishes form the Body of Christ on earth. This visible Body has a visible head, the Pope…’
** We can see then that the words ‘All bishops are equal’ is intended as a refutation of the idea that the Pope is superior in authority to bishops, this clearly is a heresy. The church has repeatedly stated that the Pope is the ‘head of the church militant’ and this idea is again condemned in this source

In other words, an ecumenical council does not receive its authority from any extrinsic, superior source. As we have already beaten into you, the Pope is part of the Ecumenical Council.

Firstly as I have made clear by the full quote above that is NOT what the author is asserting, rather he is asserting that ‘the conscience of the church… the voice of the church’ (by which he means as you can see if you read the source that whether the church as a whole does or doesnt recognise a council as ecumenical) determines whether a council is or is not ecumenical. Again this is not the teaching of the church which teaches that it suffices for the pope to recognise and ratify a council

The problem is your assumption that the Pope is separate from an ecumenical council - a denial of collegiality. The council is not superior to the Pope (though one Pope may be judged by a future council, as Honorius was) nor equal in authority to him (what would happen if they conflicted?), because it does not function separately from the Pope.

When an ecumenical council is in session the Pope functions as its head this much is true, therefore in some sense he is not necessarily seperate from the council; HOWEVER whereas the council cannot operate without the Pope, the Pope CAN exercise his supreme power WITHOUT the council as much can be seen from the decree’s of Vatican I and even those of Vatican II. Further when the pope speaks Ex Cathedra he is exercising infallibility WITHOUT an ecumenical council, of course this is done rarely, but I know of at least seven occassions stretching from the 5th century to the 20th.

I do not regard these encyclicals as authoritative. They are excuses meant to buttress schism from Rome, ones radically at odds with the historical collegial method Orthodoxy has always used. These are not monarchical decrees defining the Orthodox faith once and for all - Orthodoxy does not work like that. They are false, so I reject them.

This frankly ridicalous, no matter how many sources I list you will just go ‘I dont accept this as authoritative, i reject this, blah blah blah’. Luckily it doesn’t really matter whether you accept it or not, for the purposes of my argument it suffices to show that this was and almost certainly still is a widely held view.

 

[TrentCath]

I realize that this isn’t an SSPX thread, but I think this bears clarification given the discussion regarding Eastern Catholics and Orthodox.

The Eastern Orthodox, and even Protestants, are also spoken of as not having “full Communion”, not simply not having any Communion with the Catholic Church at all. The Catechism of the Catholic Church says this:

The Latin Code of Canon Law says this about Eastern Orthodox:

So saying “not in full Communion” is precisely the same status as that of the Eastern Orthodox, and even Protestant Christians. As for “not being outside the Catholic Church”, here’s what the aforementioned motu proprio states about the SSPX:

**Firstly it is absurd to equate ‘Orthodox’ christians who do not accept Papal supremacy, infallibility and so on with those who clearly do, it may well be true that the SSPX rejects some of the doctrines of VII, but so do the ‘Orthodox’ so they’re not going to be in the same position. As for protestants they dont have an apostolic succssion or sacraments so they’re not even in the same league as the SSPX or ‘Orthodox’

Secondly, the fact is the behaviour of Rome and the church in general on this matter has been somewhat schizophrenic, different statements and behaviours are made by cardinals and even Popes. So I disagree that the matter is as clear cut as you say. A good source for this would be the book ‘Apologia Pro Marcel Lefebvre’ and even if it is true that the definitive statement of the church is that they are at the least in an uncertain state of communion, one must examine the arguments made that say otherwise. **

So the SSPX has no status within the Church, and serves no ministry, just like the Eastern Orthodox. If the Eastern Orthodox are schismatic, then so is the SSPX, and if the SSPX is not schismatic, then neither are the Eastern Orthodox. I’ll leave it to you decide which is which, as it makes no real difference to me (in fact, as an Easterner my views would likely be much more sympathetic to you and the SSPX in terms of the definition of “schism”, though I don’t know if you’d return the favor with regards to the Eastern Orthodox).

I disagree, whereas the SSPX still accept the authority of the Pope the ‘Orthodox’ do not, whereas they can validly celberate mass and clearly hold to the Traditions of the church the Orthodox cannot and do not(though of course they celebrate the Divine Liturgy)

My point in bringing this up is not to sling mud at you, nor the SSPX, but to highlight a very real gap in understanding that exists. The views you express are at odds with the living reality of the Catholic Church, and that is why the Pope has said that there are real doctrinal differences between the SSPX and the Catholic Church. Perhaps some Eastern Catholics are similarly mistaken, and fall better into the Eastern Orthodox “camp” than they do into the Catholic, but so far we don’t have a censure from Rome on the matter so I’m leaving that alone.

Simply put, the Catholic Church does not hold as firmly to the wording of certain theologies as you seem to assume, and there is room for divergent expression of Dogmatic Truths. This fact, I believe, is part of what led to the split with the SSPX and the Catholic Church; the SSPX held to a stricter reading of Church documents than the Church Herself does. This conversation, I think, springs from this doctrinal gap.

It suffices to say I disagree with you on both counts

 

[Ghosty]

Firstly it is absurd to equate ‘Orthodox’ christians who do not accept Papal supremacy, infallibility and so on with those who clearly do, it may well be true that the SSPX rejects some of the doctrines of VII, but so do the ‘Orthodox’ so they’re not going to be in the same position. As for protestants they dont have an apostolic succssion or sacraments so they’re not even in the same league as the SSPX or 'Orthodox’

I’m not the one equating them, the Catholic Church is. There are varying degrees of “not in full Communion”, but the same term is used for all three groups. Therefore it doesn’t suffice for you to say that the SSPX isn’t in schism, but merely “not in full Communion”, because that is the very same status as the Eastern Orthodox, according to the relevant Church documents.

I disagree, whereas the SSPX still accept the authority of the Pope the ‘Orthodox’ do not, whereas they can validly celberate mass and clearly hold to the Traditions of the church the Orthodox cannot and do not(though of course they celebrate the Divine Liturgy)

The Orthodox not only celebrate valid Sacraments, but in some cases there is open and official sharing of Sacraments. The Syriac Catholic and the Syriac Orthodox have open agreements for the pastoral care of eachother’s faithful, and the Sacraments are shared openly between them, including Confession. I myself have received Communion from a Syriac Orthodox priest at a Divine Liturgy celebrated by our Bishop. My point is this: don’t be so sure that the Orthodox are as removed from the Catholic Church as you seem to think. The Church holds them in the same basic status as the SSPX, and your disagreement with this fact only highlights your differences with the Catholic Church Herself.

When it comes to Vatican II, you do not accept all of its teachings despite them being promulgated by the Pope, and yet you complain that Eastern Catholics either do the same, or that we interpret Council documents in a manner consistent with our ancient traditions. The Catholic Church has supported us in doing this, so who are you to tell us otherwise, especially when your own group does the same but in defiance of the Church, rather than with Her support?

Peace and God bless!

 

[Cavaradossi]

Firstly it is absurd to equate ‘Orthodox’ christians who do not accept Papal supremacy, infallibility and so on with those who clearly do, it may well be true that the SSPX rejects some of the doctrines of VII, but so do the ‘Orthodox’ so they’re not going to be in the same position. As for protestants they dont have an apostolic succssion or sacraments so they’re not even in the same league as the SSPX or 'Orthodox’

What’s with the scare quotes you use around the term ‘Orthodox Christians’? Do you see the Orthodox posters referring to the Roman Catholics as Roman ‘Catholic’ Christians?