Ecumenical Councils and Eastern Catholics

[Cecilianus]

By virtue of his office, not because he is a bishop.

He is Bishop of Rome (the diocese), metropolitan (of the Roman province), primate of Italy (Italian bishops), and first of the patriarchs. The universal office is the Supreme Pontiff.

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

 

[mardukm]

Dear sister NinjaSnark,

I don’t have a lot of time, and I’m sorry I haven’t been around for such a long time.

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?

Personally, I accept the 7, Florence, Trent, Vatican 1 and Vatican 2 as Ecumenical. I’m up in the air about Lyons, since it seems (to me) to have had a more political impetus than a religious one. Trent is demographically not representative of the entire Church, but its teachings are so ubiquitously accepted, even among Orthodox (though not exactly according to the same theological terminology), that I can’t see it as anything else but Ecumenical.

I hope that helps.

Blessings,
Marduk

How many Ecumenical Councils do Eastern Catholics recognize? I’ve seen ECs on this forum say they only recognize the first seven- is that true across the board for ECs or does it differ from sui iuris Church to sui iuris Church?

This is terribly confusing for me. I’ve heard Catholics many times point to Orthodoxy and talk about their Ecumenical Council problem, but it seems that the Catholic Church isn’t exactly a bastion of clarity on the issue either.

How does the Church deal with this incongruity? If the West considers many more councils than the first seven to be Ecumenical (and therefore the doctrines therein infallible), then what does the East do with that? Consider things like papal infallibility and the Immaculate Conception theologoumenon?

As I try to pin down the bare bones minimum, the basics, of Catholic belief I’m having a really hard time figuring out what is dogma and what is theologoumenon.

Any help or direction would be greatly appreciated!

 

[TrentCath]

Which proves my point. Get rid of the schism and you get rid of the “heresy” - that is, the Orthodox attempts to fluff up the differences between them and Rome. There’s no serious dogmatic difference between Rome and Moscow; just trumped-up exaggerations. Anyone with an ounce of common sense can see differently, most obviously Papal Infallibility and Supremancy followed closely by the defintion of original sin, then the canon of scripture, then indulgences and after that a whole host of lesser dogmatic differences

There’s absolutely no reason to suspect those Eastern Catholic in communion with Rome of heresy, because WE’RE NOT IN SCHISM!!! We’ve been in communion with Rome since the Union of Uzhhorod in 1646. How many hundreds of years will it take before you accept that we’re actually Catholic?

Did I say all Eastern Catholics or even most were herectics or not catholic? No. I listed a very simple set of beliefs which any faithful Catholic would have subscribed to but the majority of Eastern Catholics decided to reject them, complain about latinizations and church politics and claim it wasn’t their tradition.

 

[TrentCath]

This is a question of discipline, not of development of doctrine or of dogma. Development of doctrine is completely irrelevant.

Actually as it touches more than a little on the popes ‘plenary and universal jurisdiction’ its dogmatic not disciplinary.

 

[TrentCath]

If they are simply ignoring them and not denying them, why in the world is that a problem?

Because ignoring is simpler a nicer way of denying a truth or hiding truths you find unpalatable. And I didn’t say they were just ignoring them, they are also denying them.

 

[TrentCath]

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

Implication in the way addresses are given vs clear implications in several ecumenical councils and the explicit teaching of at least one. Even someone with the most basic theological background can tell which of those two things holds more weight.

 

[mardukm]

Dear brother tdgesq,

You make a good point. It seems that “Ecumenical” is utilized by certain Catholic magisterial sources to mean “authoritatvely established as universally binding,” not necessarly “universally attended.” I doubt that Melkite sources would claim that the dogmas of Vatican 1 were not “universally binding.”

It is still a fact that there has been no dogmatic decree on the number of Ecumenical Councils. Interestingly, the Council of Florence did not count several of the Councils prior to it as Ecumenical that many in the Catholic Church today call “Ecumenical.”

Blessings,
Marduk

It is obvious to me that the Melkite Church here means something different by the term “ecumenical.” If by ecumenical we mean that a council was attended by representatives of the Eastern Churches, then the Melkite view is correct, with the councils of Florence and Vatican One falling somewhere in a grey area. I don’t think Roman Catholics should have a problem with this. It would only be a problem if the ECCs rejected the dogmatic conclusions of those councils. Even then, those that are formulated purely in the context of Latin theology may be inapplicable to the East. Not inapplicable in the sense that something absolutely true and binding about the Christian faith is expressed in those statements, but only in the sense that those same truths are expressed differently through another theological system.

As I’ve posted on this subject before, I don’t see the problem when one Catholic Church says twenty-one ecumenical councils and another says seven. It would be a problem if the dogmatic conclusions of those later 14 councils were rejected, but I rarely see this from the ECCs.

 

[TrentCath]

By virtue of his office, not because he is a bishop.

He is Bishop of Rome (the diocese), metropolitan (of the Roman province), primate of Italy (Italian bishops), and first of the patriarchs. The universal office is the Supreme Pontiff.

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

 

[mardukm]

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

Actually, if you have read the Official Relatio of Vatican 1, it distinguishes between the Pope’s role as bishop of Rome and his role as Supreme Pontiff when he defines ex catehdra.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[Cavaradossi]

TrentCath,

I feel that you are needlessly suspicious of your Eastern Catholic brethren. Even though I disagree with many of the Eastern Catholic posters quite often on many points, I have a hard time looking on as one of their supposed coreligionists bashes their historical, theological and liturgical traditions, insisting that it’s the Latin way or the highway, while the Roman Catholic Church herself has stated otherwise. They are your fellow brethren in Christ, who have joined with Rome in order to experience the joy of celebrating at the Table of the Lord with the West. Why do you suspect your united brothers?

 

[Fone_Bone_2001]

Which proves my point. Get rid of the schism and you get rid of the “heresy” - that is, the Orthodox attempts to fluff up the differences between them and Rome. There’s no serious dogmatic difference between Rome and Moscow; just trumped-up exaggerations.

There’s absolutely no reason to suspect those Eastern Catholic in communion with Rome of heresy, because WE’RE NOT IN SCHISM!!! We’ve been in communion with Rome since the Union of Uzhhorod in 1646. How many hundreds of years will it take before you accept that we’re actually Catholic?

Well said, every bit.

Well, in our Liturgy which we have prayed since the fourth century, we pray “for all Orthodox Christians”, and at Vespers we pray for God to “strengthen the Orthodox Faith”, and all our fathers wrote books like “De Fide Orthodoxa”. The term Orthodox is our liturgical identity. You have it in your Tridentine Mass too, but you never identified with it as strongly because it is said silently rather than sung in a loud voice during the Great Entrance when the priest is amidst the people.

Our Faith is the Orthodox Faith. “Orthodox” for Eastern Christians means nothing but “orthodox” - we never made that distinction, and never will. We did not lose our Orthodoxy by returning to communion with Rome; to do so would mean we are heterodox, and that is what we staunchly deny.

I put the term “in communion with Rome” in parentheses because to be truly Orthodox is to be in communion with Rome. In the fullest sense of Orthodoxy, they imply each other, and it should be unnecessary. Due to the ugly reality of schism, I have to put that qualifier in as an afterthought.

This makes sense. During the first millennium, wasn’t it standard to speak of “the Catholic Church” and “the Orthodox Faith”?

Only now because of the enduring East-West Schism do we sadly set these terms against each other for convenience’s sake…

Dear sister NinjaSnark,

I don’t have a lot of time, and I’m sorry I haven’t been around for such a long time.

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?

Personally, I accept the 7, Florence, Trent, Vatican 1 and Vatican 2 as Ecumenical. I’m up in the air about Lyons, since it seems (to me) to have had a more political impetus than a religious one. Trent is demographically not representative of the entire Church, but its teachings are so ubiquitously accepted, even among Orthodox (though not exactly according to the same theological terminology), that I can’t see it as anything else but Ecumenical.

I hope that helps.

Blessings,
Marduk

Thank you for weighing in, Marduk - I appreciate it!

Dear brother tdgesq,

You make a good point. It seems that “Ecumenical” is utilized by certain Catholic magisterial sources to mean “authoritatvely established as universally binding,” not necessarly “universally attended.” I doubt that Melkite sources would claim that the dogmas of Vatican 1 were not “universally binding.”

An excellent distinction; thank you.

 

[TrentCath]

Actually, if you have read the Official Relatio of Vatican 1, it distinguishes between the Pope’s role as bishop of Rome and his role as Supreme Pontiff when he defines ex catehdra.

Blessings,
Marduk

And? I don’t think anyone disputes that there’s clearly a difference between a successor of Rome acting in his own name as the succesor of St Peter and when he speaks ex-cathedra, from the chair of Peter, as if he was in fact Peter.

 

[TrentCath]

TrentCath,

I feel that you are needlessly suspicious of your Eastern Catholic brethren. Even though I disagree with many of the Eastern Catholic posters quite often on many points, I have a hard time looking on as one of their supposed coreligionists bashes their historical, theological and liturgical traditions, ‘Bashes their traditions’? Please show me somewhere ANYWHERE in fact where I’ve bashed their traditions? Rather I have merely pointed out several De Fide teachings of the Catholic Church and asked if they agree with them. Many don’t or interpret them in a way that is deeply suspect insisting that it’s the Latin way or the highway, **I reject this ridicalous notion of the churches teachings somehow being divided between East and West with each free to follow their own teachings, as if Truth was somehow limited or relative. No. The Churches Teaching is UNIVERSAL, wherever it comes from East or West is as far as I’m concerned irrelevant, what is relevant is that the church has proclaimed those doctrines infallibly. If I was to say it was the ‘Latin way’ or the high way I would reject the idea of the dormiton, reject prayer ropes and the Jesus prayer, criticise Ikons, reject their rites and so on, none of which I have done. If it appears that that it was I am doing I apologise **while the Roman Catholic Church herself has stated otherwise. The church has stated people are free to follow many rites and maintain their genuine traditions, nowhere does it subscribe to the idea of allowing doctrinal freedomThey are your fellow brethren in Christ, who have joined with Rome in order to experience the joy of celebrating at the Table of the Lord with the West. Why do you suspect your united brothers?**Mainly because instead of simply going ‘I agree with this teaching’ I’ve heard everything from ‘thats a latinization’ to ‘thats not our tradition’ to ‘its not relevant’ and so on. **

 

[steve_b]

An excellent distinction; thank you.

Requisite numer of members (for ecumenical status)

“The number of bishops present required to constitute an Ecumenical council cannot be strictly defined, nor need it be so deigned, for ecumenicity chiefly depends on co-operation with the head of the Church, and only secondarily on the number of co-operators. It is physically impossible to bring together all the bishops of the world, nor is there any standard by which to determine even an approximate number, or proportion, of prelates necessary to secure ecumenicity. All should be invited, no one should be debarred, a somewhat considerable number of representatives of the several provinces and countries should be actually present; this may be laid down as a practicable theory. But the ancient Church did not conform to this theory. As a rule only the patriarchs and metropolitans received a direct summons to appear with a certain number of their suffragans. At Ephesus and Chalcedon the time between the convocation and the meeting of the council was too short to allow of the Western bishops being invited. As a rule, but very few Western bishops were personally present at any of the first eight general synods. Occasionally, e.g. at the sixth, their absence was remedied by sending deputies with precise instructions arrived at in a previous council held in the West. What gives those Eastern synods their Ecumenical character is the co-operation of the pope as head of the universal, and, especially, of the Western, Church. This circumstance, so remarkably prominent in the Councils of Ephesus and Chalcedon, affords the best proof that, in the sense of the Church, the essential constituent element of ecumenicity is less the proportion of bishops present to bishops absent, than the organic connection of the council with the head of the Church.”

newadvent.org/cathen/04423f.htm

 

[Alexander_Roman]

TrentCath,

I feel that you are needlessly suspicious of your Eastern Catholic brethren. Even though I disagree with many of the Eastern Catholic posters quite often on many points, I have a hard time looking on as one of their supposed coreligionists bashes their historical, theological and liturgical traditions, insisting that it’s the Latin way or the highway, while the Roman Catholic Church herself has stated otherwise. They are your fellow brethren in Christ, who have joined with Rome in order to experience the joy of celebrating at the Table of the Lord with the West. Why do you suspect your united brothers?

Actually, I believe many Roman Catholics would be suspicious of our friend, TrentCath!

Before he comes looking Eastward, he has a lot of work to do to convince his own ritual confreres about his strong views on the papacy etc.!

Alex

 

[Alexander_Roman]

TrentCath:
But even doctrine can be expressed (and should be) within the various theological traditions of the Catholic Church.

When you come at the EC’s with your “let me put you on the spot” definitions about Catholic dogma to say “Do you or don’t you accept this (on pain of damnation)?”, I don’t believe you have reviewed well the Eastern theological positions beforehand.

I am giving you special “Roman” dispensation to disagree with me . . .

Alex Roman

 

[TrentCath]

Actually, I believe many Roman Catholics would be suspicious of our friend, TrentCath!

Before he comes looking Eastward, he has a lot of work to do to convince his own ritual confreres about his strong views on the papacy etc.!

Oh I know, I know
Alex

 

[TrentCath]

But even doctrine can be expressed (and should be) within the various theological traditions of the Catholic Church. So long as the doctrine doesnt change then maybe, I’m wary of expressing it through different traditions however as things may be ‘lost in translation’ so to speak as has happened more than once

When you come at the EC’s with your “let me put you on the spot” definitions about Catholic dogma to say “Do you or don’t you accept this (on pain of damnation)?”, **Thats a caricature of what I actually did, a good caricature but one nonetheless ** I don’t believe you have reviewed well the Eastern theological positions beforehand. **Then you would be wrong **

I am giving you special “Roman” dispensation to disagree with me . . . Appreciated but I dont’t need a dispensation to preach the truth

Alex Roman

 

[Alexander_Roman]

Requisite numer of members (for ecumenical status)

“The number of bishops present required to constitute an Ecumenical council cannot be strictly defined, nor need it be so deigned, for ecumenicity chiefly depends on co-operation with the head of the Church, and only secondarily on the number of co-operators. It is physically impossible to bring together all the bishops of the world, nor is there any standard by which to determine even an approximate number, or proportion, of prelates necessary to secure ecumenicity. All should be invited, no one should be debarred, a somewhat considerable number of representatives of the several provinces and countries should be actually present; this may be laid down as a practicable theory. But the ancient Church did not conform to this theory. As a rule only the patriarchs and metropolitans received a direct summons to appear with a certain number of their suffragans. At Ephesus and Chalcedon the time between the convocation and the meeting of the council was too short to allow of the Western bishops being invited. As a rule, but very few Western bishops were personally present at any of the first eight general synods. Occasionally, e.g. at the sixth, their absence was remedied by sending deputies with precise instructions arrived at in a previous council held in the West. What gives those Eastern synods their Ecumenical character is the co-operation of the pope as head of the universal, and, especially, of the Western, Church. This circumstance, so remarkably prominent in the Councils of Ephesus and Chalcedon, affords the best proof that, in the sense of the Church, the essential constituent element of ecumenicity is less the proportion of bishops present to bishops absent, than the organic connection of the council with the head of the Church.”

newadvent.org/cathen/04423f.htm

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

By the same token, the absence of the Orthodox Eastern Churches or else their approval of the “later Latin Councils” is what makes those Latin councils fail the test of ecumenicity for the East (as well as the fact that the issues largely raised by them were of concern to the Latin West - the so-called “union councils” of Lyons and Florence failed precisely because they were not union councils at all, but attempted impositions of Latin theology on the East).

Have a great day!

Alex

 

[Alexander_Roman]

And? I don’t think anyone disputes that there’s clearly a difference between a successor of Rome acting in his own name as the succesor of St Peter and when he speaks ex-cathedra, from the chair of Peter, as if he was in fact Peter.

Was it not Bl Pope John XXIII who once said, “I am only infallible when I speak ex cathedra . . . and I will never speak ex cathedra!”

Apart from the canonization of saints, I don’t think you will find a pope in the very distant future in a hurry to make any more ex cathedra statements . . .

Alex