Ecumenical Councils and Eastern Catholics

[Peter_Mogila]

7 of those 21 are Ecumenical Councils, without question.

Most of them are at least general councils of the West, and several (Florence, V1, V2) are general councils of the Catholic Communion.

Do they rise to Ecumenical status? maybe, maybe not…

Does it Matter? No - they have church wide authority as they were promulgated by the popes as valid councils of the church. They taught truth as surely as any meeting of the synod of the Catholic Communion.

So Why not call them ecumenical? Because doing so hurts the ongoing dialogues with the separated brethren in Christ in both of the Orthodox Communions and the Utrecht Communion.

They are councils of the church 21 general councils, with full teaching authority. That’s the minimum standard for Catholics on the issue. The label ecumenical isn’t part of it.

Now, most Orthodox are going to say:

What’s the difference between saying these later 14 Councils have “full teaching authority” and calling them “ecumenical”? Is this a distinction without a difference?

In a reunited Church, do Orthodox need to accept the “full teaching authority” of Vatican I on papal supremacy and papal infallibility?

If no, then those teachings are not part of what is truly “catholic”.

If yes, then for all practical purposes Vatican I would be considered an ecumenical council for both Orthodoxy and Catholicism in a reunited Church. But, such is not likely to happen.

Peter

 

[Rawb]

This is the sort of thing that makes me want to just throw my hands up in the air. I left Protestantism because it doesn’t make sense, and I just want to go home. But where is home? One day I’m pretty sure it’s the Catholic Church, and then the next, Orthodoxy. It’s exhausting and frustrating. And it’s not like Protestantism where I can just pick a Church based on whose service I like better.

Many of us have been there. Unfortunately we’ve come to different answers, so our throwing out “Oh, your home is ________” will be just slightly biased and unhelpful for you.

But I’ll pray for you. This discernment is confusing and sometimes seems like “more than it’s worth”. Sometimes we need to take a break form it, but trust in The Lord; He will not abandon or mislead you. More time should be spent in prayer than reading Church histories and comparative theology.

 

[Peter_Mogila]

But I’ll pray for you. This discernment is confusing and sometimes seems like “more than it’s worth”. Sometimes we need to take a break from it, but trust in The Lord; He will not abandon or mislead you. More time should be spent in prayer than reading Church histories and comparative theology.

Very good advice, Rawb. Prayer should lead the journey.

Peter

 

[Cecilianus]

7 of those 21 are Ecumenical Councils, without question.

Most of them are at least general councils of the West, and several (Florence, V1, V2) are general councils of the Catholic Communion.

Do they rise to Ecumenical status? maybe, maybe not…

Does it Matter? No - they have church wide authority as they were promulgated by the popes as valid councils of the church. They taught truth as surely as any meeting of the synod of the Catholic Communion.

So Why not call them ecumenical? Because doing so hurts the ongoing dialogues with the separated brethren in Christ in both of the Orthodox Communions and the Utrecht Communion.

They are councils of the church 21 general councils, with full teaching authority. That’s the minimum standard for Catholics on the issue. The label ecumenical isn’t part of it.

Unless the Orthodox and the Old Catholics accept their authority as the voice of Christ speaking through Peter, though, getting rid of the term “ecumenical” isn’t going to do any ecumenical good (sorry for the pun). It might help to recognize that the councils were addressed to problems and heresies in the West which the East was not necessarily susceptible to, but getting rid of the term might appear to imply that only the teachings of the first seven councils need to be accepted for one to be Orthodox - which is clearly not true, since theoretically someone could hold a Zwinglian view of the Eucharist while still venerating ikons and holding to the faith of the first seven councils (though obviously no Orthodox ever has or ever will do this).

To give special honor or a special name to the first seven councils is one thing - they are the councils of the Fathers of the Church, and the West usually doesn’t use the term “Father of the Church” for people who lived after that. That seems to me a better reason to reserve the term “ecumenical” for the first seven councils, rather than ecumenical concerns (pardon the pun again).

I want to avoid the tendency to regard subsequent developments as optional, a tendency which in its extreme form would look like Luke Timothy Johnson’s “creedal Christianity” where the Apostle’s Creed is the only standard of faith.

 

[Cecilianus]

It is a pickle. It seems like something that definitely needs an answer. If the purpose of Ecumenical Councils is to define dogmas necessary for/binding on the entire Church, then it strikes me that everyone should be on the same page about how many there are. If they’re saying 21 in the west… well, that’s a big leap from the Eastern 7. Presumably there was a lot of defining going on in those 14 councils.

A lot of them dealt with disciplinary reform in the Western Church (1, 2 and 5 Lateran, for example), or called for crusades (e.g., 1 Lyons, Vienne), or condemned the Albigensian and Protestant errors (3 and 4 Lateran, Trent), or sought to end schism in the Church (Constance for the Great Western Schism, 4 Constantinople, 2 Lyons and Florence for the big one). That just leaves Vatican I which defined papal infallibility and Vatican II, which was called for no reason whatsoever and despite having the opposite effect ought to be placed in the disciplinary reform category (sorry for the attitude, but it’s true).

So unless the Orthodox decide overnight to become Albigensians or Protestants it’s unlikely that any of the other fourteen councils really affect them. Some of the minor heresies like those of Arnold of Brescia and the Spiritual Franciscans had some parallels in the East in the struggles between the “possessors” and “non-possessors”, but nobody in the East ever denied the right of the Church to own property - the question was always concerning property-holding by monastics, and likewise the push for charismatic authority (by people like St. Symeon the New Theologian) always respected that of the hierarchy. The Albigensians did have some effect on the Eastern Church through their predecessors (the Bogomils and Messalians), but their errors were carefully condemned in the disputes over hesychasm, and while it is historically plausible that the “Toll Houses” is a Bogomilish doctrine in its origin (as argued by Fr. Michael Azkoul in The Toll-House Myth: The Neo-Gnosticism of Father Seraphim Rose), the idea of purification of sins before one can enter the fullness of Heaven sounds suspiciously to me like what we call Purgatory, and Fr. Azkoul (an Antiochian Orthodox priest) for his part only challenged the “geography” of the Toll-Houses, arguing that the Catholic doctrine of Purgatory is more harmonious with Orthodox teaching. So I really don’t see any problem there.

We saw how well Protestantism went over with the Eastern Church when Cyril Loukaris adopted a Calvinist profession of faith and was universally rejected by the other Orthodox hierarchy (and the Greek Orthodox Church today maintains that his Calvinism is a myth), so that leaves Vatican I and Vatican II as the only potential sources of disagreement. The Papacy is a real sticking point, the reconciliation over which is going to be difficult, but I think possible. As far as Vatican II, the West would be wise to either scrap it or actually implement its real intentions and go back to looking like a real religion anyway, and seeing as how the liturgical differences between 1962 and 1969 are a matter for legitimate disagreement, this is only a stumbling-block for unity as a matter of motivation for getting the Orthodox to take us seriously, not a matter of actual doctrinal divergences.

And under the leadership of Pope Benedict the liturgical problems in the Church (done “in the name of” but completely contrary to the actual spirit of the Council) are starting to get cleaned up. It’s always a mistake to hold a Council without a tangible problem to fight; the way the psychology of a council works there always ends up having to be enemy, and people thought it was the old Church, hence the silliness.

 

[TrentCath]

I’m wondering how this statement is viewed by the Latin Rite Catholics here? Are Latin Rite Catholics comfortable with the idea that Eastern Catholics might only accept 7 ecumenical councils?

And a follow-up question:

Would Latin Rite Catholics be comfortable with Orthodox only accepting 7 ecumenical councils in a reunited Church?

Peter

I am not comfortable with that statement, its anathema to the Churches teachings. The church has continously denounced attempts to restrict the churches teachings for those ‘re-joining’ the church to its teachings pre-schism. This can be seen from the 13th and 14th sessions of the Council of Florence which states inter alia ‘*Great, then, for us and for all Christ’s faithful is the reason for rejoicing. For with the Lord’s approval the most illustrious profession of the Roman church about the truth of the faith, which has always been pure from all stain of error shines with new beams also in the east beyond the bounds of the Euphrates inasmuch as it has drawn our venerable brother Abdala, archbishop of Edessa and legate of our venerable brother Ignatius, patriarch of the Syrians, and of his whole nation, to us here in bountiful Rome and to this sacred ecumenical Lateran council’ *

Again '*After careful discussion with our brethren and the sacred council, we decided, with the approval of the same council, to propose and assign…the faith and doctrine which the holy Roman mother church holds. *

And lastly '*Also, in future I will always hold, confess, preach and teach whatever the holy Roman church holds, confesses, teaches and preaches and I reject, anathematize and condemn whatever she rejects, anathematizes and condemns; in future I will always reject, anathematize and condemn especially the impieties and blasphemies of the most wicked heresiarch Nestorius and every other heresy raising its head against this holy catholic and apostolic church. *

Forgive me for the long quotes but it was easier than linking to the councils online.One can also see it in the encyclicals Praeclara Gratulationis Publicae (The Reunion of Christendom) by Pope Leo XIII and Amantissimus (on the care of the churches) by pope Piux IX. Both make it clear that any re-union would require the eastern churches to return to the catholic church and accept its faith whole and entire.

As for Eastern Orthodox being able to accept only 7 ecumenical councils and be in union with Rome, its simply impossible. The faith of Rome has developed beyond that of the 7 councils and it logically isnt possible to be in union with a church whose faith you have rejected either implicitly or explicitly.

 

[TrentCath]

Just because one sui juris particular Church (the Roman) calls a council “ecumenical” does not mean the same terminology applies universally.

The “Magisterium” as an abstract teaching authority exercised through Roman curia and Papal pronouncements is a particularly Latin way of teaching the Faith. We have more of an emphasis on proclaiming the Faith through the Liturgy and through canons. For example, the teaching of Nicea II is taught to us through the iconography of our churches and the Feast of the Triumph of Holy Orthodoxy; that is why we venerate icons, not because we found in Denzinger that that is what the Magisterium teaches. The Chalcedonian Christology is taught to us by the many prayers to the Theotokos in the Liturgy, rather than by appealling to Papal pronouncements about Mary. Just a different method, and both are good, and we both hold the same Faith. But the Western councils after the Triumph of Holy Orthodoxy did not affect our liturgy or the proclamation of our faith, so there is no reason or need to call them ecumenical, imo. They did not involve the Orthodox (except for Florence and Lyons, which were largely failures) and hence in relation to us are not really ecumenical. This does not affect their authority or the fact that the faith they proclaim is the faith of the whole Church, the whole sacred oikumene, and this is why the West is justified in calling them ecumenical.

The Orientals are likewise justified in reducing the number of ecumenical councils to those in which they participated. An Assyrian Church of the East priest once said to me “we’re not Nestorian; we just never attended Chalcedon and consequently never saw a reason to either embrace it or reject it, regarding it as their affair which is none of our business”. I don’t think any ecumenical council since Nicea I (or maybe Constantinople I) has had every bishop in the Church present, and maybe not even those (there may have been and probably were bishops in India who may not have been invited, for example). Doesn’t affect a council’s authority, but it does mean that a country whose bishops did not attend have a legitimate point in regarding it just as a local council.

Firstly the church has NEVER in its history referred to its self as a ‘particular’ church rather it has repeatedly emphasised in reference to numerous heresies, protestants and the eastern churches that it is the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church outside of which none can be saved. (The exact interepretation of that doctrines has changed over time though). The Roman Church is not a sui juris particular church, the eastern churches are however, that is why you will never see a reference to the ‘Western Church’ or the ‘Particular roman church’ in canon law. Rather you see laws that apply only to those catholics that follow western rites, but the church has never identified itself as a ‘particular’ church and indeed cannot without violating its belief that it is the one holy catholic and apostolic church. This is also why you will never hear the church referring to itself as the ‘Catholic Communion’. Lastly it was why the code of canons of the eastern churches is majorly influenced by the code of canon law of the catholic church, some of which I believe is universal in application.

If you don’t mind I’d like to call you out, so to speak, on the idea that they didn’t affect your faith after the ‘triumph of holy orthodoxy’, the councils made several doctrines de fide, the proceeding of the holy spirit from the father AND the son as from one principle, the absolute necessity of belonging to the catholic church in order to be saved, papal infallibility, the number of books in the bible and the matter and form of the sacraments, as well as the number of the sacraments, to name but a few. How is it then possible that these councils did not affect your faith?

I would also point out that the Church has never taught that for a council to be ecumenical all the bishops of the world must attend or all the bishops from various churches; this is based on an erroneous belief held largely by the Orthodox. Rather the church has taught that councils which declare themselves ecumenical or general councils and are ratified as such by the pope are ecumenical councils.

Forgive me if it seems like I’m being obstinate, but there is a rather large distinction between ‘local councils’ and ‘ecumenical councils’. Whereas the former are not infallible and can be subject to reform or abrograted, the latter are not and cannot be abrogated. It is therefore a rather pressing issue to determine which are and aren’t ecumenical councils as it determines the direction of ‘Orthodox’ theology as well as those who are or aren’t heretics and so on.

 

[Dave_in_Dallas]

It is a pickle. It seems like something that definitely needs an answer. If the purpose of Ecumenical Councils is to define dogmas necessary for/binding on the entire Church, then it strikes me that everyone should be on the same page about how many there are. If they’re saying 21 in the west… well, that’s a big leap from the Eastern 7. Presumably there was a lot of defining going on in those 14 councils.

This is the sort of thing that makes me want to just throw my hands up in the air. I left Protestantism because it doesn’t make sense, and I just want to go home. But where is home? One day I’m pretty sure it’s the Catholic Church, and then the next, Orthodoxy. It’s exhausting and frustrating. And it’s not like Protestantism where I can just pick a Church based on whose service I like better.

NinjaSnark,
Welcome on your journey for the ancient. Rawb had some great advice.
Someone else on here has explained the other 14 or so councils as “local” church councils for the Church of Rome — the first 7 are for the whole church (east & west).
I’ve been having a lot of sleepness nights for the past year and finally feel at peace (for now) in the byzantine rite Eastern Catholic churches.

 

[Vico]

Vico,

I realize that’s what it says and what Rome says. Still, there are many Eastern Catholics who disagree and the Melkite Church which backs the Zoghby Initiative, not to mention the official US Melkite Church webpage (which I cited above) that says the Vatican Council was not ecumenical.

I’m not Eastern Catholic. I’m just asking what different folks here think about this.

It does have ecumenical implications, however. Would Orthodox need to accept the later Western Councils as ecumenical in a reunited Church?

Peter

The Zoghby Initiative declaration is: I believe everything which Eastern Orthodoxy teaches. I am in communion with the Bishop of Rome as the first among the bishops, according to the limits recognized by the Holy Fathers of the East during the first millennium, before the separation.

To which would also need to be understood: I believe everything which the Catholic Church teaches. This is because the Catholic Church is a union based upon common faith, sacraments, and hierarchy. Since the dogma de fide define the faith, dogmas of faith are required to be accepted.

Since there has been disagreement over what are the dogmas de fide between the Assyrian Church of the East, the Oriental Orthodox, and the Eastern Orthodox, I believe that any current differences would need to be resolved prior to re-union, and that this is the core issue, rather than the definition of the word ecumenical, although that definition does have bearing. Theologoumenon do not directly affect our understanding of who God is, and have no clear scriptural teaching. No Catholic dogmas de fide are theologoumenons. There is disagreement on this issue over the meaning of “clear scriptural teaching”.

The Old Catholic Encyclopedia classifies two types of general councils, which become ecumenical:
1.Ecumenical Councils are those to which the bishops, and others entitled to vote, are convoked from the whole world (oikoumene) under the presidency of the pope or his legates, and the decrees of which, having received papal confirmation, bind all Christians. A council, Ecumenical in its convocation, may fail to secure the approbation of the whole Church or of the pope, and thus not rank in authority with Ecumenical councils. Such was the case with the Robber Synod of 449 (Latrocinium Ephesinum), the Synod of Pisa in 1409, and in part with the Councils of Constance and Basle.

2.The second rank is held by the general synods of the East or of the West, composed of but one-half of the episcopate. The Synod Of Constantinople (381) was originally only an Eastern general synod, at which were present the four patriarchs of the East (viz. of Constantinople, Alexandria, Antioch, and Jerusalem), with many metropolitans and bishops. It ranks as Ecumenical because its decrees were ultimately received in the West also.

 

[Caeremonarius]

I’ll let others hammer out the details of your post, but I find this assertion odd:

The Roman Church is not a sui juris particular church, the eastern churches are however, that is why you will never see a reference to the ‘Western Church’ or the ‘Particular roman church’ in canon law.

The first canon of the current CIC (1983) reads:

Can. 1 The canons of this Code regard only the Latin Church.

(The Latin Church is the proper name for the “Western Church.”)

AJ

 

[TrentCath]

I’ll let others hammer out the details of your post, but I find this assertion odd:

The first canon of the current CIC (1983) reads:

(The Latin Church is the proper name for the “Western Church.”)

AJ

You are indeed right, I’ll now remove said assertion seeing as I’ve been proved wrong

I would be interested to see if this reference existed in the 1917 code of canon law though? My latin leaves a little to be desired so I haven’t been able to check.

 

[ConstantineTG]

You are indeed right, I’ll now remove said assertion seeing as I’ve been proved wrong

I would be interested to see if this reference existed in the 1917 code of canon law though? My latin leaves a little to be desired so I haven’t been able to check.

sui juris means self governing. Isn’t the Roman Catholic Church self governing? Are Eastern Bishops having a say in RC dioceses? Even if the term is not used in the past, it doesn’t change the fact. Also note in history the 4 patriarchates have always been autonomous from one another.

 

[Vico]

You are indeed right, I’ll now remove said assertion seeing as I’ve been proved wrong

I would be interested to see if this reference existed in the 1917 code of canon law though? My latin leaves a little to be desired so I haven’t been able to check.

1983 code (CIC) refers to a Church sui iuris as a “rite”. The 1990 code (CCEO) introduced a different meaning of rite, and uses Church sui iuris instead.

New commentary on the Code of Canon Law By John P. Beal, James A. Coriden, Thomas J. Green, p. 49. states:

“This initial canon sets forth the fundamental rule that this code pertains only to the Latin Church sui iuris. Consequently it does not bind the members of the Eastern Catholic churches, notwithstanding some canons that allude to them. [7]”

[7] See cc. 111-112; 214; 350; 372.2; 383-2; 450.1; 476; 479.2; 518; 846.2; 923; 991; 1015.2; 1021; 1109; 1248.1.

 

[TrentCath]

sui juris means self governing. Isn’t the Roman Catholic Church self governing? Are Eastern Bishops having a say in RC dioceses? Even if the term is not used in the past, it doesn’t change the fact. Also note in history the 4 patriarchates have always been autonomous from one another.

Sui juris means ‘governed according to ones owns laws’. The difference is subtle but nevertheless important, the canon establishes a difference in laws taking into account the difference between the Western and Eastern Traditions. This difference is obviously crucial when it comes to the ecumenical councils, a self-governing church would theoretically have the right to decide what were its dogmas, which ecumenical councils to accept and not and so on. That isn’t the case however as anyone can see by having even a cursory look at either the 1917 code of canon law, the 1983 code of canon law or the 1990 Code of Canons of the Eastern Churches. All of which establish the Popes ‘Supreme and Plenary Jurisidictiton’, the right of appeal to the Holy see and so on.

Eastern Bishops don’t have a direct say over Latin Diocese’s but then neither do most Latin Bishops bar through an episcocal conference. That said both Eastern and Latin bishops could if they headed up one of the Vaticans many Dicastery’s.

I’m afraid as a Catholic I don’t accept that the 4 patriarchates (though I thought it was 5, hence the term pentarchy?) were autonomous, nor does any catechism of the church, church councils and so on.

 

[TrentCath]

1983 code (CIC) refers to a Church sui iuris as a “rite”. The 1990 code (CCEO) introduced a different meaning of rite, and uses Church sui iuris instead.

New commentary on the Code of Canon Law By John P. Beal, James A. Coriden, Thomas J. Green, p. 49. states:

“This initial canon sets forth the fundamental rule that this code pertains only to the Latin Church sui iuris. Consequently it does not bind the members of the Eastern Catholic churches, notwithstanding some canons that allude to them. [7]”

[7] See cc. 111-112; 214; 350; 372.2; 383-2; 450.1; 476; 479.2; 518; 846.2; 923; 991; 1015.2; 1021; 1109; 1248.1.

Thats illuminating, though seeing as the Latin Church has several rites I’m surprised that the two terms are interchangeable.

 

[Vico]

Thats illuminating, though seeing as the Latin Church has several rites I’m surprised that the two terms are interchangeable.

The other meaning is liturgical rite. Some confusion is avoided by using the term ritual church. But the Latin Church is a ritual church and also a Church sui iuris.

 

[TrentCath]

The other meaning is liturgical rite. Some confusion is avoided by using the term ritual church. But the Latin Church is a ritual church and also a Church sui iuris.

Thanks

So would it be possible to say that all catholics are Roman Catholics? The logic behind that being that they all profess the faith of Rome, are in union with Rome and accept it as the head of the church.

 

[Peter_Mogila]

We’re getting into some interesting side discussions here. Perhaps new threads are warranted?

As to this thread: Ecumenical Councils and Eastern Catholics

Can we safely say that some Eastern Catholics only accept 7 while others accept the 21 that Roman Catholics accept?

ISTM that only the Melkite Church has gone on record as saying there are only 7. However, I would very much like to know how the new Ukrainian Catholic Catechism explains this. Since initial news reports indicate it is very faithful to the Eastern tradition my guess is that it does not speak of the later Councils as ecumenical. But, this is just conjecture on my part. Anyone here have access to the new Ukrainian Catholic Catechism? If so, what does it say about Ecumenical Councils?

Peter

 

[NinjaSnark]

I think this point is worth discussing:

Now, most Orthodox are going to say:

What’s the difference between saying these later 14 Councils have “full teaching authority” and calling them “ecumenical”? Is this a distinction without a difference?

In a reunited Church, do Orthodox need to accept the “full teaching authority” of Vatican I on papal supremacy and papal infallibility?

If no, then those teachings are not part of what is truly “catholic”.

If yes, then for all practical purposes Vatican I would be considered an ecumenical council for both Orthodoxy and Catholicism in a reunited Church. But, such is not likely to happen.

Peter

Actually, if Eastern Catholics accept the doctrine of papal infallibility then I think not considering V1 (at the very least) Ecumenical is just a game of semantics.

 

[Vico]

Thanks

So would it be possible to say that all catholics are Roman Catholics? The logic behind that being that they all profess the faith of Rome, are in union with Rome and accept it as the head of the church.

Roman Catholic is in the dictionary (1581 first use per Merriam Webster) and means “the part of the Christian Church that acknowledges the pope as its head, especially as it has developed since the Reformation” but it is not an official title of the Catholic Church. There is a Roman Church.

March 18, 1581 - **Act to Retain the Queen Majesty’s Subjects in their due obedience23 Eliz. I, c.1

The English Parliament passes strict legislation against anyone practicing the “the Romish religion”

Treason to attempt to convert a Protestant to Catholicism
Saying mass = 200 marks fine and 1 year imprisonment
Hearing mass = 100 marks fine
Recusancy fines increased £20

Oxford English Dictionary (from Old Catholic Encyclopedia):
Roman Catholic
The use of this composite term in place of the simple Roman, Romanist, or Romish; which had acquired an invidious sense, appears to have arisen in the early years of the seventeenth century. For conciliatory reasons it was employed in the negotiations connected with the Spanish Match (1618-1624) and appears in formal documents relating to this printed by Rushworth (I, 85-89). After that date it was generally adopted as a non-controversial term and has long been the recognized legal and official designation, though in ordinary use Catholic alone is very frequently employed. (New Oxford Dict., VIII, 766)

First meaning of (Merriam Webster) ecumenical (adj):

1: worldwide or general in extent, influence, or application

Late Latin oecumenicus, from Late Greek oikoumenikos, from Greek oikoumenē the inhabited world, from feminine of oikoumenos, present passive participle of oikein to inhabit, from *oikos *house — more at vicinity First Known Use: circa 1587