Ecumenical Councils and Eastern Catholics

[steve_b]

seems to stem primarily from a lack of separation of Church and state.

not to derail things, maybe possible reasons for your problems with the russians

Past Patriarch Alexi, was a KGB agent code name, “Drosdov”

http://www.keston.org.uk/kns/miscnew/KNS RUSSIA The Patriarch and the KGB.html
PR:

The same held for Polish Catholics. Eastern Catholics in Ukraine, since they are neither Roman Catholic nor “Orthodox” (in the sense of not being in communion with Rome) were particularly persecuted because it seemed nobody really fully understood where their loyalties were in regards to the state.

If they weren’t Orthodox, and they weren’t in union with Rome, then they technically aren’t Catholic either.
PR:

Sadly the “explanation” is nothing more than “ecumenical sensitivity”. Rome simply doesn’t want to create any further waves between it and Moscow.

did you know

• Alexi prevented popes, most recently JPII from even visiting the Ukraine and other spots where Catholics reside.
• As far as ecumenical sensitivity, when Cardinal Kasper was in charge of the ecumenical efforts for the Vatican, he said in 2002

“We are increasingly conscious of the fact that an Orthodox Church does not really exist,” he contends. “At the present stage, it does not seem that Constantinople is yet capable of integrating the different autocephalous Orthodox Churches; there are doubts about its primacy of honor, especially in Moscow.” He continues: "With Moscow, dialogue at the universal level at present is very difficult;…[snip]

zenit.org/article-3885?l=english

Is it possible, just thinking out loud, that the efforts by the Vatican with the RO is deffinitely with you in mind also, so that you aren’t persecuted by the RO in particular, and the Russian govt in general?. He’s there in solidarity for you as a Catholic and he brings world attention to your grievances and persecution
PR:

Sadly we have Eastern and Oriental Catholic Patriarchates whose numbers could fit into a small room, but when it comes to the largest Eastern Catholic body in the world Rome refuses to recognize it as a Patriarchate.

They have given no reason?
PR:

Scholars, even Roman Catholic scholars, don’t seem to agree on what makes a council ecumenical

You and I know that “scholars” is a very loose term. Do you have any specific names you’re refering to?
PR:

It is also widely accepted that universal reception is not necessarily necessary to make a council ecumenical. In fact, there are only three (or four?) councils that are universally recognized as being ecumenical by Catholicism, Eastern Orthodoxy, and Oriental Orthodoxy.

actually, Catholics and EO at least agree on 7. The orientals otoh don’t.
PR:

I am more and more coming to agree with a certain forum member that the question should not be whether or not a council is ecumenical, but whether or not it is orthodox. Remember, just because an Eastern Catholic may not accept such councils as Trent, Florence, Vatican I - II, etc. as ecumenical, doesn’t mean that we don’t believe they are not orthodox.

That’s squishy at best. If it is sooooo difficult for the EO to agree what is ecumenical, then how are those same people to agree what is orthodox and agree universally?

Look at Cardinal Kasper’s comments above.
PR:

Personally (and I am speaking for myself), I only believe that the first 7 of the councils are truly ecumenical, but I don’t believe that any of the “general synods of the West” (so called by Pope John XXIII or Paul VI) are heterodox, heretical or whatever when understood within their proper Latin context. They …[snip]

The problem here is that no one really knows what primacy means, not even the Pope. …[snip].

In the CC there are 21 ecumenical councils

Of course primacy is understood. Just look in the CA library.

 

[Formosus]

On the other hand, the people in Turkey that call themselves “Romans” and whom the rest of the world refers to as “Greeks” still think there is an empire - and their local bishop is still called the Ecumenical Patriarch.

I don’t presume to speak for the romanoi but I imagine that no one is under the delusion The Empire exists de facto anymore. The name Roman has is their ethnic heritage ,not the name of the state they belong to.

 

[TrentCath]

So don’t come here in the Eastern Catholicism Forum and pretend that a catechism you deem authoritative among your group that is not in communion with the Catholic Church, is BINDING on Eastern and Oriental Catholics. The CCC does not support your Absolutist Petrine errors, but clearly supports the collegial ecclesiology of the Church.

According to the CCC, to which, if you were truly in the Catholic communion, you would adhere, IT BELONGS TO THE SACRAMENTAL NATURE OF ECCLESIAL MINISTRY THAT IT HAVE A COLLEGIAL CHARACTER, and
AS A MEMBER OF THE EPISCOPAL COLLEGE, EACH BISHOP SHARES IN THE CONCERN FOR ALL THE CHURCHES.

Blesings,
Marduk

The problem Marduk quite simply is that the Catholic faith does not change, so complaining about me using catechisms that are not binding isn’t actually an argument or valid point at all. No one is going to be foolish enough to say that a catechism formulated on the authority of the council of Trent is wrong nor that one approved by one of only 2 popes sainted in the last four hundred years is wrong nor that one so revered and widely used as the Baltimore catechism is wrong. So to make the argument that just because it is not binding now its not relevant is simplistic and ignorant especially as the catechism of the council of Trent was binding for some specific period of time.

You’ll notice I only resorted to catechisms when you could not or would not accept the clear teaching of the church on these matters, none of these catechisms interpret the doctrines of papal infallibility, supremacy, the nature of the Roman catholic church or a whole host of other things the way you do. You now therefore have to argue against not only the most obvious interpretation of numerous council texts but also the way those texts were interpreted by 3 seperate catechisms and for that matter by the 1917 code of Canon law.

As for your references to Vatican II a council which is used to justify so many erroneous views, I am afraid that neither it nor the catechism it spawned put forth your point of view. Nowhere will you see it state that a pope cannot interfere in other bishops diocese’s, nowhere will you see it say that you should obey a pope only if what he is doing is for the good of the church, nowhere will you see it say that a pope must exercise his power collegially, the list goes on. If it did say such things it would have to explain why it contradicted no less than 3 catechisms one of which was its predecessor.

As for your seemingly tribalistic comments about me coming into ‘the eastern catholic section’ I would remind that anyone on this forum has a right per the rules to go where he pleases and for you to say that to a fellow catholic is even more amusing. As for your attempts to paint me as not catholic well all I have to say on that matter is that all the cardinals and bishops who support the traditionalist movement by encouraging the group to which I adhere including most of Ecclessia Dei are in an awful lot of trouble if we’re not even catholic!

The problem is that you have elevated your view that there is nothing wrong with the orthodox church’s doctrines from mere opinion to a tenet of faith, therefore it cannot be disproved without your entire faith being disproved. Rather than reject those doctrines which are rejected by the church you have carried over the Orthodox view I’m certain matters even if it be irreconcilable with the doctrine of the Catholic church. I have no such issue if someone was to show that the point of view was wrong I would be the first to beg forgiveness for my grievous errors.

 

[Phillip_Rolfes]

not to derail things, maybe possible reasons for your problems with the russians

Past Patriarch Alexi, was a KGB agent code name, “Drosdov”

http://www.keston.org.uk/kns/miscnew/KNS RUSSIA The Patriarch and the KGB.html

If they weren’t Orthodox, and they weren’t in union with Rome, then they technically aren’t Catholic either.

They were/are in union with Rome. The were/are the Ukrainian Greek Catholic Church whose head is (sadly) a “Cardinal” (even though this title is a purely Roman imposition. Still the “Cardinal”/Patriarch knows that the only way to get stuff done in Rome is to accept the title).

did you know

• Alexi prevented popes, most recently JPII from even visiting the Ukraine and other spots where Catholics reside.
• As far as ecumenical sensitivity, when Cardinal Kasper was in charge of the ecumenical efforts for the Vatican, he said in 2002

“We are increasingly conscious of the fact that an Orthodox Church does not really exist,” he contends. “At the present stage, it does not seem that Constantinople is yet capable of integrating the different autocephalous Orthodox Churches; there are doubts about its primacy of honor, especially in Moscow.” He continues: "With Moscow, dialogue at the universal level at present is very difficult;…[snip]

What Cardinal Kasper is referring to here is that the Orthodox Church is not just one Church with one head that we can turn to in order to effect a complete union. In reality the Orthodox Church is a communion of Churches, most of which are national Churches with their own individual heads. Constantinople is incapable of integrating the different autocephalous Churches because the Ecumenical Patriarch does not function the same way in Orthodoxy as the Pope does in Catholicism.

zenit.org/article-3885?l=english

Is it possible, just thinking out loud, that the efforts by the Vatican with the RO is deffinitely with you in mind also, so that you aren’t persecuted by the RO in particular, and the Russian govt in general?. He’s there in solidarity for you as a Catholic and he brings world attention to your grievances and persecution

I’m not quite sure what you’re talking about here, especially since I’m an Eastern (Melkite) Catholic.

They have given no reason?

Explicitly? Perhaps, although I don’t have any documentation. But in a situation such as this, actions speak louder than words.
You and I know that “scholars” is a very loose term. Do you have any specific names you’re refering to?

I’ll have to look it up again some time.

actually, Catholics and EO at least agree on 7. The orientals otoh don’t.

True, but thanks to dialogue the Orientals have recognized that there is nothing heterodox/heretical in the later of the 7 Councils. Similarly, again through dialogue, it has been discovered that the Orientals do hold to the Faith of the 7 Councils, but they use their own terminology (not steeped in Greek philosophical terms) to express the same essential truths.

That’s squishy at best. If it is sooooo difficult for the EO to agree what is ecumenical, then how are those same people to agree what is orthodox and agree universally?

The EO have no difficulty recognizing what Councils are ecumenical, hence they only hold to 7. Within Orthodoxy, however, as in Catholicism, all hold to the essential TRUTHS of the faith expressed in the Councils, but there are many schools of theological speculation that often disagree with each other. But we must bear in mind that there is a difference between dogma and speculation (theologoumena).

Look at Cardinal Kasper’s comments above.

In the CC there are 21 ecumenical councils

Where does one find a definitive/dogmatic list of those Councils? In fact such lists were not drawn up until St. Robert Bellarmine came along. From what I’ve heard/read he drew up a number of lists of “ecumenical” Councils. And his own lists did not even agree with each other. So again the emphasis should be on “orthodox” vs. “heterodox”.

Of course primacy is understood. Just look in the CA library.

I will trust the past few Popes who have called for a re-examination of Papal primacy in order that it might better reflect the experience of the first Millennium.

 

[Cecilianus]

Originally Posted by PR

In the parenthetical explanation “in the sense of not being in communion with Rome”, the referent is the meaning of the term “Orthodox” (“Orthodox” in the second intention), not the body of people called Eastern Catholics (“Eastern Catholics” in the first intention). I think you misunderstood what he was saying. Eastern Catholics in Ukraine have always been fully Catholic - just not Roman Catholic.

 

[Fone_Bone_2001]

True, but thanks to dialogue the Orientals have recognized that there is nothing heterodox/heretical in the later of the 7 Councils. Similarly, again through dialogue, it has been discovered that the Orientals do hold to the Faith of the 7 Councils, but they use their own terminology (not steeped in Greek philosophical terms) to express the same essential truths.

I really believe this is true not just of the Oriental churches and the Eastern churches, but also of the teachings of the Latin Church and those churches of the eastern/Byzantine tradition as well: one faith, same essential truths, quite distinct approach/terminology/description.

 

[steve_b]

I will trust the past few Popes who have called for a re-examination of Papal primacy in order that it might better reflect the experience of the first Millennium.

Do you have a specific papal document you’re refering to?

 

[Phillip_Rolfes]

Do you have a specific papal document you’re refering to?

I wish I did, but mostly it comes from books quoting Popes.

 

[Phillip_Rolfes]

For what it’s worth, last night I went through some readings I did a long time ago. It seems that the Council of Nicea II issued guidelines for what constitutes an ecumenical Council. It claims that first the Patriarchs of Jerusalem, Alexandria, Antioch, Constantinople, and Rome must either be present, or at least represented by official representatives of the Patriarchate. It also stipulates that the Patriarchs of the above mentioned five Patriarchates must all subscribe to the teachings put forth by the council. Finally (my memory may be failing me on this last one, so I’ll have to go and double check), the faithful must universally receive said Council.

Given these stipulations it seems impossible that an ecumenical council has actually been held since the third or fourth council at least, or the seventh at most. The Pope of Rome does not have authority over an ecumenical council and therefore would not have the authority to unilaterally change the guidelines indicated above without the assent of the Patriarchs from the other four Patriarchates mentioned above.

Again, this does not mean that the councils held by the Latin Church since the Schism are heretical or unworthy of the assent of faith, it simply means that, given the above guidelines, they cannot be considered ecumenical.

 

[steve_b]

They were/are in union with Rome. The were/are the Ukrainian Greek Catholic Church whose head is (sadly) a “Cardinal” (even though this title is a purely Roman imposition. Still the “Cardinal”/Patriarch knows that the only way to get stuff done in Rome is to accept the title).

If you go back and look, you said they were not.
PR:

What Cardinal Kasper is referring to here is that the Orthodox Church is not just one Church with one head that we can turn to in order to effect a complete union. In reality the Orthodox Church is a communion of Churches, most of which are national Churches with their own individual heads. Constantinople is incapable of integrating the different autocephalous Churches because the Ecumenical Patriarch does not function the same way in Orthodoxy as the Pope does in Catholicism.

The point is

• there is no Orthodox church. No ONE church speaks for the other or for all.
• the “ecumenical patriarch” of Constantinople isn’t really ecumenical because such authority is questionable among the RO who make up the majority of EO.
• The Russians want to make Moscow the 3rd Rome.

PR:

I’m not quite sure what you’re talking about here, especially since I’m an Eastern (Melkite) Catholic.

My mistake. The way you were talking and pressenting your case, I thought you were UGC
PR:

Explicitly? Perhaps, although I don’t have any documentation. But in a situation such as this, actions speak louder than words.

I think it’s best to go with documentation.
PR:

The EO have no difficulty recognizing what Councils are ecumenical, hence they only hold to 7.

Since ~1054, the EO haven’t met together. They’ve needed to, but can’t seem to agree on how. (What does THAT tell you?) Needless to say because The Russians think Moscow ought to be the 3rd Rome, it’s causing quite a rift. iow, because there is no magesterium in EO, there’s a power struggle going on.

Constantinople wanted to be the “new Rome”, now Moscow wants to be the “new Rome”, they don’t seem to get it. It’s NOT the city, it’s the Chair of Peter which they are all seperated from.
PR:

Where does one find a definitive/dogmatic list of those Councils? In fact such lists were not drawn up until St. Robert Bellarmine came along. From what I’ve heard/read he drew up a number of lists of “ecumenical” Councils. And his own lists did not even agree with each other. So again the emphasis should be on “orthodox” vs. “heterodox”.

Papal approval and promulgation ensures orthodoxy AND ecumenicity…by definition

 

[Cecilianus]

The point is

• there is no Orthodox church. No ONE church speaks for the other or for all.
• the “ecumenical patriarch” of Constantinople isn’t really ecumenical because such authority is questionable among the RO who make up the majority of EO.
• The Russians want to make Moscow the 3rd Rome.

No, there really is only one Orthodox Church - Cardinal Kasper I’m afraid has an extremely poor grasp of the situation, like most people involved with ecumenism. Orthodoxy has no single supreme head, however, aside from Christ, so you can’t point to an earthly “leader” with universal jurisdiction in the East. But they are a single communion, and therefore a single Church.

 

[steve_b]

No, there really is only one Orthodox Church - Cardinal Kasper I’m afraid has an extremely poor grasp of the situation, like most people involved with ecumenism. Orthodoxy has no single supreme head, however, aside from Christ,

Catholics claim the same, Protestants claim the same. Only one is the chair of Peter.
C:

so you can’t point to an earthly “leader” with universal jurisdiction in the East. .

No earthly leader with universal jurisdiction in the East?

Jesus didn’t set up His Church with no earthly leader with universal jurisdiction. He made Peter His earthly leader with universal jurisdiction, over His Church (i.e. the entire planet ). And Peter had successors to his office.

It obviously shows no one in the East thinks they are successor to Peter. Although you’ll see what follows an interesting comment by a metropolitan from one of the Orthodox churches, that I’d like to get your thoughts on
C:

But they are a single communion, and therefore a single Church

So therefore negotiating with one is like negotiating with all? Nope!!!

The CC has to negotiate with each Orthodox church individually because they are NOT one. If agreements are made, it is with that church only they are in discussion with. That’s the way it works with the EO.

I’d like your opinion on the following

“The Russian Orthodox Church holds the ‘de facto’ first place among all of the other Orthodox Churches because of her great spirituality, her ethics and virtues, her tradition, and her political influence; as such, she speaks for the over 350 million Russians throughout the world. Moreover, she exercises influence in all of the Orthodox Churches of the Balkans, as well as in those countries where the Orthodox faithful represent a minority. We are the rightful spiritual heirs of Byzantium.” Metropolitan Cyril of Smolensk:

Your thoughts?

 

[Phillip_Rolfes]

If you go back and look, you said they were not.

I went back and checked. I never said that the Ukrainians that were martyered at the hands of both Catholics and Orthodox were not in communion with Rome. I said that those Ukrainians Greek Catholics who sought to maintain the purity of their tradition were suspected by the Polish (Latin/Roman) Catholics of not being Catholic and, therefore, not being loyal to the state. The same held for the Ukrainian Catholics who sought to Latinize in order to “prove” their Catholicity to the Poles. They were suspected of not being loyal to the Russian (Orthodox) state because they weren’t “Orthodox”. So in the minds of the Poles the Greek Catholics were not “Catholic” (i.e. Roman) enough, and in the minds of the Russians they were not “Orthodox” enough (because they weren’t Russian Orthodox). It is truly a very complex history and an online forum cannot even begin to convey the complexity. There have been volumes written on this situation, feel free to check them out instead of taking my word for it.

As to the rest of the discussion, I’m done. I’ve said my piece and from here I’ll just be repeating myself. But I’ve done my homework. I’m sorry if I don’t think an online forum merits the effort of a bibliography on everything that I’ve read on the topic. The Vatican’s website has plenty of documents relating to Eastern Catholics, Eastern Orthodox and ecumenical relations between the two. Likewise the USCCB’s website has some wonderful similar documents. Eastern Christian Publications is another excellent resource, and even has a two-volume set of Papal documents directly related to Eastern Catholicism. I’ll leave you to read those and form your own opinion.

As to whether or not there have been any other ecumenical councils, I stand by the decrees of Nicea II, which clearly show that it is impossible for an ecumencial council to have taken place post-Schism.

If the Pope doesn’t like my stance, then he can excommunicate me and I’ll proudly take my place among our Orthodox brethren. But Rome did not excommunicate Kyr Elias Zoghby for expressing such opinions. Nor did Kyr Zoghby recant on those opinions at the time of his death.

 

[Cecilianus]

I’d like your opinion on the following

“The Russian Orthodox Church holds the ‘de facto’ first place among all of the other Orthodox Churches because of her great spirituality, her ethics and virtues, her tradition, and her political influence; as such, she speaks for the over 350 million Russians throughout the world. Moreover, she exercises influence in all of the Orthodox Churches of the Balkans, as well as in those countries where the Orthodox faithful represent a minority. We are the rightful spiritual heirs of Byzantium.” Metropolitan Cyril of Smolensk:

Your thoughts?

Typical Moscow-as-Third-Rome style thinking. Russians like to vaunt their superiority or primacy over other Orthodox churches, an attitude typically resented by people like the Ukrainians. And the Estonian Orthodox Church, under the jurisdiction of the Ecumenical Patriarchate, would be a bit surprised to hear of any Russian influence over her.

On the other hand, saying that Russia is the rightful spiritual heir of Byzantium, and giving her a historical primacy over the smaller Orthodox bodies in other countries or especially over Russians in exile, seems pretty uncontroversial to me.

 

[Cavaradossi]

For what it’s worth, last night I went through some readings I did a long time ago. It seems that the Council of Nicea II issued guidelines for what constitutes an ecumenical Council. It claims that first the Patriarchs of Jerusalem, Alexandria, Antioch, Constantinople, and Rome must either be present, or at least represented by official representatives of the Patriarchate. It also stipulates that the Patriarchs of the above mentioned five Patriarchates must all subscribe to the teachings put forth by the council. Finally (my memory may be failing me on this last one, so I’ll have to go and double check), the faithful must universally receive said Council.

Given these stipulations it seems impossible that an ecumenical council has actually been held since the third or fourth council at least, or the seventh at most. The Pope of Rome does not have authority over an ecumenical council and therefore would not have the authority to unilaterally change the guidelines indicated above without the assent of the Patriarchs from the other four Patriarchates mentioned above.

Again, this does not mean that the councils held by the Latin Church since the Schism are heretical or unworthy of the assent of faith, it simply means that, given the above guidelines, they cannot be considered ecumenical.

Honestly, I don’t see why the thread didn’t end here.

 

[Phillip_Rolfes]

Honestly, I don’t see why the thread didn’t end here.

LOL

 

[steve_b]

I went back and checked. I never said that the Ukrainians that were martyered at the hands of both Catholics and Orthodox were not in communion with Rome.

though you didn’t use the “quote” button, you wrote (emphasis mine)

"The same held for Polish Catholics. Eastern Catholics in Ukraine, since they are neither Roman Catholic nor “Orthodox” (in the sense of not being in communion with Rome) were particularly persecuted because it seemed nobody really fully understood where their loyalties were in regards to the state. "

forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=8180010&postcount=417

I may have misunderstood you but, I’m reading your comment as Eastern Catholics in the Ukraine aren’t Roman Catholics, they aren’t Orthodox, and they aren’t in union with the pope. Did I misread you?
PR:

As to the rest of the discussion, I’m done. I’ve said my piece and from here I’ll just be repeating myself. But I’ve done my homework. I’m sorry if I don’t think an online forum merits the effort of a bibliography on everything that I’ve read on the topic.

I don’t know you and you don’t know me. So for my part, I try and make it easy for the one I’m conversing with. When I say something to someone that if the table was reversed, I know I would want the source, I not only give the sources upfront in anticipation of the question, I also add the link if I can, so they don’t have to doubt what I post, or spend lots of time trying to look for what I’ve given. And I’ve given you sources and links up front, in anticipation, you will ask for them…true?
PR:

The Vatican’s website has plenty of documents relating to Eastern Catholics, Eastern Orthodox and ecumenical relations between the two. Likewise the USCCB’s website has some wonderful similar documents. Eastern Christian Publications is another excellent resource, and even has a two-volume set of Papal documents directly related to Eastern Catholicism. I’ll leave you to read those and form your own opinion.

All I asked you for, is a source document so I can see what the context is to your statement is refering to. That’s all.
PR:

As to whether or not there have been any other ecumenical councils, I stand by the decrees of Nicea II, which clearly show that it is impossible for an ecumencial council to have taken place post-Schism.

Ecumenical councils are Catholic councils. those who are seperated from the chair of Peter are not Catholic.

 

[steve_b]

Typical Moscow-as-Third-Rome style thinking. Russians like to vaunt their superiority or primacy over other Orthodox churches, an attitude typically resented by people like the Ukrainians. And the Estonian Orthodox Church, under the jurisdiction of the Ecumenical Patriarchate, would be a bit surprised to hear of any Russian influence over her.

On the other hand, saying that Russia is the rightful spiritual heir of Byzantium, and giving her a historical primacy over the smaller Orthodox bodies in other countries or especially over Russians in exile, seems pretty uncontroversial to me.

What about primacy over Antiochans, Alexandreans, etc etc etc. Sees ~1000 years older than the Russians

 

[Cecilianus]

What about primacy over Antiochans, Alexandreans, etc etc etc. Sees ~1000 years older than the Russians

Not my fight to pick. I imagine the Antiochians and Alexandreans would be pretty unhappy with that attitude.

 

[Cavaradossi]

What about primacy over Antiochans, Alexandreans, etc etc etc. Sees ~1000 years older than the Russians

Russia can blow all the smoke she wants, but the true primacy of the Eastern Orthodox Church lies in the hands of the Ecumenical Patriarch. I think Russia is also technically listed after the ancient Sees of Constantinople, Alexandria, Antioch and Jerusalem, not before them.