Ecumenical Councils and Eastern Catholics

[Cecilianus]

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.

I think the only acceptable solution would be for the Eastern Churches to acknowledge the Orthodoxy of Rome and thereby accept its faith whole and entire. But this does not necessarily mean that the term “Ecumenical” is adopted for these councils, only that their faith is held and teachings are accepted. I regard this as a just a semantic dispute, unless someone starts denying the teaching of a general council.

 

[Cecilianus]

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.

Keeping in mind your retraction of this statement, it might be helpful to point out that the Church was usually speaking (through encyclicals, bulls, etc.) to an audience of Roman Catholics in Roman Catholic countries where the existence of Eastern Catholics (always a tiny minority in the Church) was often irrelevant, if people even knew of their existence. So simply calling themselves the Church is what we would expect. The fullness of the universal Catholic Church subsides in the particular Roman Church, so this is not incorrect. (The same fullness also subsides in each one of the Eastern Churches, of course.)

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,

Actually what Florence did is define that there is no dispute between East and West over this, imho (other Eastern Catholics on this forum, such as Apotheoun, have disagreed with me on this, and I need to take a closer reading of the texts before bringing up the dispute with them again). We both have always held that the Holy Spirit proceeds in a single procession from the Father, and that somehow He comes in or through the Son. The Eastern dogma, defined at the Council of Constantinople-Blachernae in 1351 (which should have as much claim as the later Western Councils to be ratified as an Ecumenical Council) is that the Spirit eternally and energetically receives His divinity from the Son, but that His hypostatic origin is from the Father alone. The only disagreement over the text of Florence (between myself and Apotheoun, for example) is whether the term “cause” need imply hypostatic origin in the intention of the people writing the canons of that council.

See St. Maximos the Confessor for his more detailed explanation of the compatibility between the traditional Greek and Latin views of the procession of the Spirit.

the absolute necessity of belonging to the catholic church in order to be saved

This was defined by the Papal bull Unigenitus - I’m not aware of a council defining it, unless it occurred at Trent. Note, however, that insofar as the Orthodox possess the fullness of the Apostolic faith and sacramental life, the fullness of the Catholic Church subsists in them, and they have the means of salvation, irrespective of their duty to seek to repair the ecclesiastical schism between themselves and Rome. As far as the Church is concerned, someone growing up in Russia in the Church of his forefathers is probably a Catholic in the fullest sense of the term.

papal infallibility,

Which I accept and which I understand may be a stumbling-block for many Orthodox, but which I do not think is alien from the Orthodox Faith when properly understood. The Pope does not speak on his own, but speaks in the name of the Church as a spokesman for everyone. This is consistent with the Orthodox notion of the primacy of Peter without making him a prophet (he isn’t, and Roman Catholicism never said he was) or a universal bishop in regards to whom other bishops are only middle-management bureaucrats (again, also not the Catholic doctrine).

the number of books in the bible

Not an issue for us, as we haven’t changed the liturgical calendar (which still omits the Apocalypse of St. John, regarded as canonical by all contemporary Orthodox but which was still under dispute when we set our calendar, and the Canticle of Canticles which was regarded as too intimate for liturgical use). The canon was set long before Trent, which only repeated what had already been determined. Besides, our Bibles include things like 3 and 4 Maccabees anyway, and my parish read the Protoevangelion of St. James for a “Bible study”. We regard Scripture as part of the single deposit of Faith (as verified by the CCE), canon 598 as quoted above, and we don’t care whether you call something “Scripture” or “Tradition” since that semantic distinction isn’t made in the West.

 

[Cecilianus]

…CONTINUED:

and the matter and form of the sacraments,

Which were never under dispute in the East, and which we prefer not to define, for the reasons given by Cardinal Ratzinger in The Nature and Mission of Theology, pp. 111-112:

It seems to me that we have before us a typically Western restriction and legalistic reduction of the notion of faith which radicalizes certain one-sided developments which begin to make their appearance around the High Middle Ages. A parallel may render the issue clearer: from about the thirteenth century on, interest in the conditions necessary for validity begins to push every other consideration to the margin of sacramental theology. Increasingly, everything ceases to matter except the alternative between valid and invalid. Those elements which do not affect validity appear to be ultimately trivial and interchangeable. Thus, in the case of the Eucharist, for example, this is expressed in an ever-stronger fixation on the words of consecration; that which is actually constitutive for validity becomes more and more strictly limited. Meanwhile, the eye for the living structure of the Church’s liturgy is progressively lost. Everything other than the words of consecration appears to be mere ceremony, which happens to have evolved into its present form but in principle might just as easily have been omitted. The characteristic nature of liturgy and the irreplaceable liturgical sense cease to be regarded as important, falling as they do outside the narrow limits of a legally defined minimalism. But the truth that this juridical necessary factor retains its meaning solely when it remains within the living totality of the liturgy had to be relearned only with great labor. A good part of the liturgical crisis of the Reformation was due to these constrictive tendencies, which are also the key to understanding the liturgical crisis of the present. If today the entire liturgy has become the playground of private “creativity”, which can romp at will just as long as the words of consecration are kept in place, at work is the same reduction of vision whose origin lies in an erroneous development typical of the West but quite unthinkable in the Eastern Church.

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?

Which again we prefer not to define, since it introduces an unnecessary disjunction between sacrament and sacramental and risks reducing a sacrament to a mechanical or magical action rather than the divinely willed institute of God’s grace. We have all the mysteries or sacraments, and they are always efficacious when done properly without any impediment from someone’s disposition, and the same is true for the sacramentals because God wills us to use them.

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.

Except that we regard our own councils like the Council of Constantinople-Blachernae of 1351 as something which determines the direction of Orthodox theology. After all, we proclaim its faith in our Liturgy when we celebrate the Feast of St. Gregory Palamas. We don’t care whether it’s “infallible” or not - we trust to the teaching of the Church and accept what has been handed down to us. The method of close nitpicking to determine whether a document is “infallible” or not before we accept it as our faith is alien to our mindset. If a council teaches error, I trust that it will be condemned or abrogated as such, and that no council ratified by the Pope of Rome will ever mislead me in a matter of faith. What weight a “local” council has is really determined for me at least by how subsequent generations of the Church received it.

 

[TrentCath]

I think the only acceptable solution would be for the Eastern Churches to acknowledge the Orthodoxy of Rome and thereby accept its faith whole and entire. But this does not necessarily mean that the term “Ecumenical” is adopted for these councils, only that their faith is held and teachings are accepted. I regard this as a just a semantic dispute, unless someone starts denying the teaching of a general council.

I suppose if one takes the terms General and Ecumenical as interchangeable and don’t deny that both are infallible then yes its just a semantic dispute. The issue comes when -as many people I’ve encountered do- people say that as a council isn’t ecumenical they don’t have to follow its faith and teachings.

 

[TrentCath]

Keeping in mind your retraction of this statement, it might be helpful to point out that the Church was usually speaking (through encyclicals, bulls, etc.) to an audience of Roman Catholics in Roman Catholic countries where the existence of Eastern Catholics (always a tiny minority in the Church) was often irrelevant, if people even knew of their existence. So simply calling themselves the Church is what we would expect. The fullness of the universal Catholic Church subsides in the particular Roman Church, so this is not incorrect. (The same fullness also subsides in each one of the Eastern Churches, of course.)

**
I should point out that the only part of the statement I retracted was that regarding Canon Law, the church also spoke through ecumenical councils which did not refer to the ‘Roman Church’ as a particular church but rather emphasised time and time again that it was the one holy catholic and apostolic church. It’s also important that in two of the most prominent encyclicals written by popes to do with the Eastern Churches Praeclara Gratulationis Publicae and Amantissimus again make no mention of the church being a ‘particular church’ but rather emphasise returning to the one true church which is explicitly identified with the church in Rome. This again is the case in the Council of Florence where those seeking union with the church must ‘accept whatever the church teaches and reject whatever it rejects’ to paraphrase it crudely. **

See St. Maximos the Confessor for his more detailed explanation of the compatibility between the traditional Greek and Latin views of the procession of the Spirit. Thanks, I’m fascinated to see what he has to say on the subject

This was defined by the Papal bull Unigenitus - I’m not aware of a council defining it, unless it occurred at Trent. **It’s stated in the Council of Florence which to crudely paraphrase says ‘*It firmly believes, professes and preaches that all those who are outside the catholic church, not only pagans but also Jews or heretics and schismatics, cannot share in eternal life and will go into the everlasting fire which was prepared for the devil and his angels, unless they are joined to the catholic church before the end of their lives; that the unity of the ecclesiastical body is of such importance that only for those who abide in it do the church’s sacraments contribute to salvation and do fasts, almsgiving and other works of piety and practices of the christian militia produce eternal rewards; and that nobody can be saved, no matter how much he has given away in alms and even if he has shed his blood in the name of Christ, unless he has persevered in the bosom and the unity of the catholic church.’ ***

Which I accept and which I understand may be a stumbling-block for many Orthodox, but which I do not think is alien from the Orthodox Faith when properly understood. The Pope does not speak on his own, but speaks in the name of the Church as a spokesman for everyone. **Actually I think you’ll find that the pope has spoken on numerous occasions on his own through encyclicals for example and does so as the succesor of Peter not as a spokesman for everyone or at least not always as a spokesman.**This is consistent with the Orthodox notion of the primacy of Peter without making him a prophet (he isn’t, and Roman Catholicism never said he was)I’m not entirely sure what you mean by ‘Prophet’ either, clearly catholics do not believe the Popes predict the future. The Catholic teaching is however that 'we teach and define as a divinely revealed dogma that when the Roman pontiff speaks EX CATHEDRA,that is, when, in the exercise of his office as shepherd and teacher of all Christians… in virtue of his supreme apostolic authority…he defines a doctrine concerning faith or morals to be held by the whole church, he possesses, by the divine assistance promised to him in blessed Peter, that infallibility which the divine Redeemer willed his church to enjoy in defining doctrine concerning faith or morals.
Therefore, such definitions of the Roman pontiff are of themselves, and not by the consent of the church, irreformable’ (First Vatican Council) or a universal bishop in regards to whom other bishops are only middle-management bureaucrats (again, also not the Catholic doctrine).I’m not entirely sure what you mean by ‘universal bishop’ but the Catholic doctrine is that he has ‘supreme and plenary jurisdiction’ over the whole church, this can be found expressed most clearly at The First Vatican Council and is also stated in the 1917 Code of Canon Law, the 1983 Code of Canon Law and the Code of the Canons of the Eastern Churches

Not an issue for us, as we haven’t changed the liturgical calendar (which still omits the Apocalypse of St. John, regarded as canonical by all contemporary Orthodox but which was still under dispute when we set our calendar, and the Canticle of Canticles which was regarded as too intimate for liturgical use). The canon was set long before Trent, which only repeated what had already been determined. Besides, our Bibles include things like 3 and 4 Maccabees anyway, **Yes I did find this a little troublesome, the council makes it rather clear that NO other books can be considered as scripture and anathematizes those who think that there are either less or more books in the bible **and my parish read the Protoevangelion of St. James for a “Bible study”. We regard Scripture as part of the single deposit of Faith (as verified by the CCE), canon 598 as quoted above, and we don’t care whether you call something “Scripture” or “Tradition” since that semantic distinction isn’t made in the West.

 

[Peter_Mogila]

I suppose if one takes the terms General and Ecumenical as interchangeable and don’t deny that both are infallible then yes its just a semantic dispute. The issue comes when -as many people I’ve encountered do- people say that as a council isn’t ecumenical they don’t have to follow its faith and teachings.

This is where those who are Orthodox Christians and those who are “Orthodox in communion with Rome” might differ then.

Do those Eastern Catholics who view themselves as “Orthodox in communion with Rome” feel that all the doctrines of the later councils are fully Orthodox? For example, are papal infallibility and papal universal jurisdiction part of Orthodox theology? If yes, then there is a big difference between what Orthodox Christians believe and what those who say they are “Orthodox in communion with Rome” believe.

Peter

 

[TrentCath]

…CONTINUED:

Which were never under dispute in the East, and which we prefer not to define, for the reasons given by Cardinal Ratzinger in The Nature and Mission of Theology, pp. 111-112:

Which again we prefer not to define, since it introduces an unnecessary disjunction between sacrament and sacramental and risks reducing a sacrament to a mechanical or magical action rather than the divinely willed institute of God’s grace. We have all the mysteries or sacraments, and they are always efficacious when done properly without any impediment from someone’s disposition, and the same is true for the sacramentals because God wills us to use them. I would contend that amongst the rather important reasons to define them, it prevent liturgical abuses which are many and maifold these days. Also regardless of whether you prefer to define them or not, they are defined by the Church. Still I can see what you mean.

Except that we regard our own councils like the Council of Constantinople-Blachernae of 1351 as something which determines the direction of Orthodox theology. After all, we proclaim its faith in our Liturgy when we celebrate the Feast of St. Gregory Palamas. We don’t care whether it’s “infallible” or not - we trust to the teaching of the Church and accept what has been handed down to us. The method of close nitpicking to determine whether a document is “infallible” or not before we accept it as our faith is alien to our mindset. If a council teaches error, I trust that it will be condemned or abrogated as such, and that no council ratified by the Pope of Rome will ever mislead me in a matter of faith. Whilst I would love to agree with this, Vatican II somewhat muddies the waters What weight a “local” council has is really determined for me at least by how subsequent generations of the Church received it.I would point out that I do not like ‘nitpicking’ nor am I, it is however far more important to hold and therefore far more sinful not to hold infallible or de fide doctrines than those not de fide. Knowing whether councils are infallible or not also establishes the boundaries between which ‘Orthodox’ theology can grow and expand and lastly it helps to eliminate dissent or expose the dissenters as disobedient.

 

[Cecilianus]

I would contend that amongst the rather important reasons to define them, it prevent liturgical abuses which are many and maifold these days. Also regardless of whether you prefer to define them or not, they are defined by the Church. Still I can see what you mean.

The quote from the then-Cardinal Ratzinger shows why it led to a experimental pattern of thinking that helped create the liturgical abuses. I certainly don’t mind defining dogma and sacramental matter and form - though sometimes the diversity of liturgical forms East and West can make trying to define sacramental form a bad idea. For example, the formula for absolution is deprecatory in the East, and I’ve even heard latinized Byzantine Catholics use the Latin formula and dismiss the Eastern one as “invalid” or “stupid” despite the fact that Rome does not regard it as invalid and neither did classical systematic theologians (Ludwig Ott, for example). And for the Eucharist, it’s generally believed that the whole anaphora is the form of the sacrament (hence the priority given to the epiklesis rather than the words of institution, since it occurs afterwards), but the diversity of different anaphoras in the Church doesn’t bug me a bit. And then you’ve got the Liturgy of the Assyrian Church of the East which has no words of institution, but is regarded by Rome as a valid Eucharist.

Whilst I would love to agree with this, Vatican II somewhat muddies the waters

Which is why the weight a council has is determined for me by its long-term reception. The teaching of the Church is the teaching of the Church, and the wording of individual councils may be cultural factors that the mind of the Church may not necessarily cling to. An ecumenical council attended exclusively or predominantly by Roman Catholics is going to be a “Latin” council; a council where these bishops are a bunch of 1960s hippies is going to, as you say, muddy the waters.

I would point out that I do not like ‘nitpicking’ nor am I, it is however far more important to hold and therefore far more sinful not to hold infallible or de fide doctrines than those not de fide. Knowing whether councils are infallible or not also establishes the boundaries between which ‘Orthodox’ theology can grow and expand and lastly it helps to eliminate dissent or expose the dissenters as disobedient.

This is fine, but the Eastern attitude is to “not quibble over doctrine, but entrust ourselves to the teaching of Holy Church”, to paraphrase Florence.

Most of the issues defined by post-1054 Councils are only issues in the West, and theology in the East is going to grow and expand along different lines than those pursued in the West. The East has its own theological development guided by its own liturgy and spirituality, and phenomena like hesychasm, sophiology, and imyaslavie were never addressed by Latin councils. If an idea in apparent conflict with one of the latter 14 councils is going to find its way to the East, it is probably going to do so with different wording, different theological motivation, and different context - and one may question whether the earlier councils are even applicable.

For example, some Orthodox writers like the blogger Fr. Stephen Freeman are critical of “transubstantiation”. But this does not mean that they believe that what is given to us in communion is not God, or that they hold one of the Protestant theologies of the Eucharist; there are just different emphases. (Fr. Freeman emphasizes the sacramental nature of the Eucharist - evidently misreading the Latin doctrine to be a crude literalism of the sort that St. Paschasius Radbertus espoused. My own pastor, on the feast of St. Gregory Palamas, in a homily explained the Eucharist in terms of the divinizing energies of God, which would emphasize the Eucharist more as a process of sanctifying us than a thing which we identify as God, but without necessarily contradicting the Latin teaching.)

 

[Cecilianus]

I should point out that the only part of the statement I retracted was that regarding Canon Law, the church also spoke through ecumenical councils which did not refer to the ‘Roman Church’ as a particular church but rather emphasised time and time again that it was the one holy catholic and apostolic church. It’s also important that in two of the most prominent encyclicals written by popes to do with the Eastern Churches Praeclara Gratulationis Publicae and Amantissimus again make no mention of the church being a ‘particular church’ but rather emphasise returning to the one true church which is explicitly identified with the church in Rome. This again is the case in the Council of Florence where those seeking union with the church must ‘accept whatever the church teaches and reject whatever it rejects’ to paraphrase it crudely.

The Roman Church is the one holy catholic and apostolic church. The Ukrainian Greek-Catholic Church is the one holy catholic and apostolic church. The Melkite Greek-Catholic Church is the one holy catholic and apostolic church. The Maronite Church is the one holy catholic and apostolic church - and etc. Yet all of these are distinct particular churches as well.

I’m not entirely sure what you mean by ‘Prophet’ either, clearly catholics do not believe the Popes predict the future.

What I meant is that a Papal definition does not constitute divine revelation. The Pope only reiterates what was already given to us in the deposit of faith - a fact that the Papacy has reiterated over and over again.

I’m not entirely sure what you mean by ‘universal bishop’ but the Catholic doctrine is that he has ‘supreme and plenary jurisdiction’ over the whole church, this can be found expressed most clearly at The First Vatican Council and is also stated in the 1917 Code of Canon Law, the 1983 Code of Canon Law and the Code of the Canons of the Eastern Churches

What I meant is that bishops are the true leaders and bishops of their flock, not just delegates of the Pope. And also the Pope’s supreme and plenary jurisdiction does not compromise the rights and privileges of the Eastern Churches, as affirmed in a clarification from Rome requested by the Melkite bishops before they signed the decrees of the Council. In other words, it’s not the Pope’s job to micromanage other bishop’s dioceses. He only does that when the bishops are incompetent or heretical and refuse to do anything and things get out of control (a sadly prevalent situation, unfortunately).

Yes I did find this a little troublesome, the council makes it rather clear that NO other books can be considered as scripture and anathematizes those who think that there are either less or more books in the bible

What difference does it make?

God speaks through the Fathers of the Church and the illumined saints and Elders as well. We don’t believe that the Bible is a word-for-word dictation from God as the fundamentalist Protestants do - it’s still written by humans in human words, just as the primary author is God making it the Word of God - and therefore I personally don’t see a strong distinction between revealed vs. not-revealed. Is it what God wants us to know for our salvation, a written record of the deposit of revelation, without errors of faith? If so, then I don’t really care whether it’s read at Liturgy or not.

 

[TrentCath]

The quote from the then-Cardinal Ratzinger shows why it led to a experimental pattern of thinking that helped create the liturgical abuses. I certainly don’t mind defining dogma and sacramental matter and form - though sometimes the diversity of liturgical forms East and West can make trying to define sacramental form a bad idea. For example, the formula for absolution is deprecatory in the East, and I’ve even heard latinized Byzantine Catholics use the Latin formula and dismiss the Eastern one as “invalid” or “stupid” despite the fact that Rome does not regard it as invalid and neither did classical systematic theologians (Ludwig Ott, for example). That’s unfortunate but ultimately defining the matter and form does prevent abuses, at the very least give peace of mind to the penitent and ensure that the will of the church and what Christ intended in the sacrament is carried out. I accept that it might be difficult to do so but the definition is still essential and I suppose theres no point quibling over it as its already happenedAnd for the Eucharist, it’s generally believed that the whole anaphora is the form of the sacrament (hence the priority given to the epiklesis rather than the words of institution, since it occurs afterwards), but the diversity of different anaphoras in the Church doesn’t bug me a bit. And then you’ve got the Liturgy of the Assyrian Church of the East which has no words of institution, but is regarded by Rome as a valid Eucharist. This was a rather controversial decision, frankly I don’t accept it as it undermined the doctrine of the Council of Trent and seems anathema to several hundred years of Western Theology.

Which is why the weight a council has is determined for me by its long-term reception. The teaching of the Church is the teaching of the Church, and the wording of individual councils may be cultural factors that the mind of the Church may not necessarily cling to. I suppose thats where we differ, an ecumenical council is an ecumenical council whether or not its accepted by the church or given weight doesnt affect this fundamental truthAn ecumenical council attended exclusively or predominantly by Roman Catholics is going to be a “Latin” council; a council where these bishops are a bunch of 1960s hippies is going to, as you say, muddy the waters.I suppose yes a council attended by latin bishops will be dominated by Latin theology but ultimately that makes the council neither more nor less binding. And I wouldn’t go so far as to call the bishops ‘1960’s hippies’ rather I would say they were mislead, the council is still ecumenical but the entirity of it is not infallible or binding as the council itself says. Vatican II is probably a matter for a whole other thread though

---

This is fine, but the Eastern attitude is to “not quibble over doctrine, but entrust ourselves to the teaching of Holy Church”, to paraphrase Florence.

Most of the issues defined by post-1054 Councils are only issues in the West, and theology in the East is going to grow and expand along different lines than those pursued in the West. The East has its own theological development guided by its own liturgy and spirituality, and phenomena like hesychasm, sophiology, and imyaslavie were never addressed by Latin councils. If an idea in apparent conflict with one of the latter 14 councils is going to find its way to the East, it is probably going to do so with different wording, different theological motivation, and different context - and one may question whether the earlier councils are even applicable.

For example, some Orthodox writers like the blogger Fr. Stephen Freeman are critical of “transubstantiation”. But this does not mean that they believe that what is given to us in communion is not God, or that they hold one of the Protestant theologies of the Eucharist; there are just different emphases. (Fr. Freeman emphasizes the sacramental nature of the Eucharist - evidently misreading the Latin doctrine to be a crude literalism of the sort that St. Paschasius Radbertus espoused. My own pastor, on the feast of St. Gregory Palamas, in a homily explained the Eucharist in terms of the divinizing energies of God, which would emphasize the Eucharist more as a process of sanctifying us than a thing which we identify as God, but without necessarily contradicting the Latin teaching.)I can understand a change in emphasis but the doctrine of transubstantiation is somewhat more complicated than merely believing that what is given to us in communion is God and it in its entirity is the doctrine of the Church

 

[TrentCath]

The Roman Church is the one holy catholic and apostolic church. The Ukrainian Greek-Catholic Church is the one holy catholic and apostolic church. The Melkite Greek-Catholic Church is the one holy catholic and apostolic church. The Maronite Church is the one holy catholic and apostolic church - and etc. Yet all of these are distinct particular churches as well.

**Would you care to expand on this? I’ve never encountered the idea before in any ecumenical council, enyclical or Catechism. It also seems to have a problem in that There is ONE, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church, logically then several churches cannot simultaneously be the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church otherwise there would be several churches rather than ONE.

Therefore whilst there are extensive reference to the Church in Rome being the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church throughout the ecumenical councils and papal encyclicals there is as far as I can see none implying that the eastern churches are also ‘One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic’. I would suggest that this idea comes from Orthodox Church whereas each church IS a church proper as opposed to being part of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church.

The statement also has a further problem, what about the period of time when there were no Eastern Churches? That is after the schism between East and West but before any Eastern Churches were reconciled to the Catholic Church? Was the ‘Roman Church’ not the Catholic Church then?

The profession of Faith at The First Vatican Council states inter alia ‘I acknowledge the holy,catholic,apostolic and Roman church, the mother and mistress of all the churches [1] .’ Throughout reference is constantly made to the ‘Holy, Catholic, Apostolic and Roman Church’ and indeed the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church and the ‘Roman Church’ are identified as one and the same. Now Representatives of the Eastern Churches did take part in this council, the council patently affects the faith of ALL catholics (as can be seen by the conflict between ‘Ultramontanism’ and Papal minimalism) and yet no mention at all is made of the Eastern Churches also being One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic. Rather the Roman Church in its own name proclaims a doctrine de fide for the whole church, including the Eastern Churches.
**

What I meant is that a Papal definition does not constitute divine revelation. The Pope only reiterates what was already given to us in the deposit of faith - a fact that the Papacy has reiterated over and over again.I wholeheartedly agree with this

What I meant is that bishops are the true leaders and bishops of their flock, not just delegates of the Pope. And also the Pope’s supreme and plenary jurisdiction does not compromise the rights and privileges of the Eastern Churches, as affirmed in a clarification from Rome requested by the Melkite bishops before they signed the decrees of the Council. In other words, it’s not the Pope’s job to micromanage other bishop’s dioceses. He only does that when the bishops are incompetent or heretical and refuse to do anything and things get out of control (a sadly prevalent situation, unfortunately).Although any member of the faithful may appeal to Rome for judgement and this right cannot be interfered with or abrograted by anyone no matter their dignity. This also explains why it is that bishops must be approved by the Vatican and so on.

What difference does it make?

God speaks through the Fathers of the Church and the illumined saints and Elders as well. We don’t believe that the Bible is a word-for-word dictation from God as the fundamentalist Protestants do - I suggest you read the enyclicals Providentissimus Deus and Spiritus Paraclitis which make it pretty clear that the Church leans more to to the bible being inerrant it’s still written by humans in human words, just as the primary author is God making it the Word of God - and therefore I personally don’t see a strong distinction between revealed vs. not-revealed. Is it what God wants us to know for our salvation, a written record of the deposit of revelation, without errors of faith? If so, then I don’t really care whether it’s read at Liturgy or not.**I didnt say anything about it being read during the liturgy or not? What I said was that the Canon of scripture set by the church doesnt include them ergo they are not scripture and therefore not a ‘written record of the deposit of revelation’ without errors of faith **

 

[Cecilianus]

That’s unfortunate but ultimately defining the matter and form does prevent abuses, at the very least give peace of mind to the penitent and ensure that the will of the church and what Christ intended in the sacrament is carried out. I accept that it might be difficult to do so but the definition is still essential and I suppose theres no point quibling over it as its already happened.

Except that form could be completely different words in different rites of the Church, for example the sacrament of penance.

This was a rather controversial decision, frankly I don’t accept it as it undermined the doctrine of the Council of Trent and seems anathema to several hundred years of Western Theology.

Who gave Western Theology the right to judge the East? This sort of ritual imperialism is alien to the mind of the Church and somewhat nauseating.

I can understand a change in emphasis but the doctrine of transubstantiation is somewhat more complicated than merely believing that what is given to us in communion is God and it in its entirity is the doctrine of the Church

The Church does not insist that we adopt the Western (Aristotelian) philosophical underpinnings of “transubstantiation”.

 

[Cecilianus]

Would you care to expand on this? I’ve never encountered the idea before in any ecumenical council, enyclical or Catechism. It also seems to have a problem in that There is ONE, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church, logically then several churches cannot simultaneously be the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church otherwise there would be several churches rather than ONE.

You are confusing the universal Church with the particular Church. The fullness of the universal Church subsists in each particular Church. If war or natural disaster were to isolate a single bishop with his flock up in the mountains somewhere for the rest of the world, it wouldn’t matter to them whether the rest of the Church continued to exist or not, or whether they would ever access them. The Catholic Church would still exist in that one see. Like a typical Westerner, you forget that the Church is a Mystery - not something you can rationalize about. The Church is divine and the Church is human; the Church is local and the Church is universal.

Therefore whilst there are extensive reference to the Church in Rome being the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church throughout the ecumenical councils and papal encyclicals there is as far as I can see none implying that the eastern churches are also ‘One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic’. I would suggest that this idea comes from Orthodox Church whereas each church IS a church proper as opposed to being part of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church.

My Church is one, holy, Catholic, and Apostolic. If you deny this then you are a heretic.

I say we ARE the one, holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church. You say that we are “part” of it. But whichever terminology you use - either is correct - goes for the Church of Rome as well. We are not part of the Roman Catholic Church, and in theory we are canonically completely independent (sui juris). To say that the Roman Rite IS the Catholic Church whereas the Eastern Churches are just parts of it is the sort of ritual triumphalism that the Orthodox have rightly rejected.

The statement also has a further problem, what about the period of time when there were no Eastern Churches? That is after the schism between East and West but before any Eastern Churches were reconciled to the Catholic Church? Was the ‘Roman Church’ not the Catholic Church then?

There have always been Eastern Churches, and always been Eastern Churches in communion with Rome (the Italo-Greeks and the Maronites, for example), and throughout most of history it has been unclear whether many churches (in Russia, Serbia, and the so-called “Nestorian” Church of the East) were in communion with Rome or not. Even today the schism is not complete as intercommunion and dual communion are frequently practiced in some parts of the world.

Schism between the Orthodox Churches and Rome, insofar as the schism was real, did not mean that they were no longer part of the Catholic Church, only that their communion with her was imperfect.

The profession of Faith at The First Vatican Council states inter alia ‘I acknowledge the holy,catholic,apostolic and Roman church, the mother and mistress of all the churches [1] .’ Throughout reference is constantly made to the ‘Holy, Catholic, Apostolic and Roman Church’ and indeed the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church and the ‘Roman Church’ are identified as one and the same. Now Representatives of the Eastern Churches did take part in this council, the council patently affects the faith of ALL catholics (as can be seen by the conflict between ‘Ultramontanism’ and Papal minimalism) and yet no mention at all is made of the Eastern Churches also being One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic. Rather the Roman Church in its own name proclaims a doctrine de fide for the whole church, including the Eastern Churches.

Today Rome is spoken of as the sister of the other Churches, not her mother, since the other Churches usually did not receive their apostolic succession from Rome. The Melkite bishops may have been present, but refused to sign the documents without appending statements clarifying their rights and dignity, which Rome recognized. Rome does not define doctrine for us; we are perfectly capable of doing that for ourselves, thank you very much.

You quoted two statements which clearly are discussing different meanings of “church”. Rome as a PARTICULAR Church is “mistress and mother of the Churches” insofar as as she is Queen of the Churches by virtue of her primacy. That the Roman Church could be mistress of the other Churches implies that their are other Churches. THE Church is “Roman” insofar as the Pope is Roman and we are in communion with him as prince of the apostles, not because we are part of the apostolic church over which he is patriarch or because we follow his rite.

Although any member of the faithful may appeal to Rome for judgement and this right cannot be interfered with or abrograted by anyone no matter their dignity. This also explains why it is that bishops must be approved by the Vatican and so on.

Historically in the early Church bishops were elected by their flock, not appointed by the Pope.

I suggest you read the enyclicals Providentissimus Deus and Spiritus Paraclitis which make it pretty clear that the Church leans more to to the bible being inerrant

I never disagreed with the inerrancy of the Bible.

What I said was that the Canon of scripture set by the church doesnt include them ergo they are not scripture and therefore not a ‘written record of the deposit of revelation’ without errors of faith

If they have no errors of faith, and are an expression of Tradition, then yes they are a written record of the deposit of Faith.

 

[TrentCath]

Except that form could be completely different words in different rites of the Church, for example the sacrament of penance.

No, the form is simply reversed. The form per se is still the same

Who gave Western Theology the right to judge the East? This sort of ritual imperialism is alien to the mind of the Church and somewhat nauseating.

You misunderstand, it is not the West judging the East rather it is the church. It is not legitimate to say ‘because this is western’ it has no authority over the east, so claiming that this is ritual imperalism is attacking a straw man. If something is true whether it comes from the West OR East it does not matter what matters is that it is the truth. My point was simply that it is not supported by several hundred years of theology and several prominent theologians. More problematic however is the fact that it directly undermines the teaching of an ecumenical and therefore infallible council.

The Church does not insist that we adopt the Western (Aristotelian) philosophical underpinnings of “transubstantiation”. It would seem that the council of trent disagrees with you ‘CANON lI.-If any one saith, that, in the sacred and holy sacrament of the Eucharist, the substance of the bread and wine remains conjointly with the body and blood of our Lord Jesus Christ, and denieth that wonderful and singular conversion of the whole substance of the bread into the Body, and of the whole substance of the wine into the Blood-the species Only of the bread and wine remaining-which conversion indeed the Catholic Church most aptly calls Transubstantiation; let him be anathema.’ The relevant word there being ‘species’, its clear the council and therefore the church has accepted the ‘Aristotelian philosphical underpinnings’ as you call it.

 

[Cecilianus]

Vatican II taught the equal dignity of all the rites. If the Roman Church IS the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church and the others are not, then (a) the other rites would not be equal to it, which is heresy, and (b) Greek Catholics would be outside (even if in communion with) the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic, which is schism. I protest that I am as Catholic as the Pope.

 

[Cecilianus]

No, the form is simply reversed. The form per se is still the same

The words are completely different.

My point was simply that it is not supported by several hundred years of theology and several prominent theologians. More problematic however is the fact that it directly undermines the teaching of an ecumenical and therefore infallible council.

That’s several hundred years of Western theology - it IS supported by 2,000 years of Oriental theology, the theology of the people whose Liturgy it actually is.

If we are to accept all the teachings of the Church, then we must accept this decision as well. Therefore instead of saying that it undermines the teaching of an ecumenical council, understand that it deepens the teaching instead.

A Roman Mass or Greek Liturgy without the Words of Institution would be invalid. That’s the point Trent was making.

‘CANON lI.-If any one saith, that, in the sacred and holy sacrament of the Eucharist, the substance of the bread and wine remains conjointly with the body and blood of our Lord Jesus Christ, and denieth that wonderful and singular conversion of the whole substance of the bread into the Body, and of the whole substance of the wine into the Blood-the species Only of the bread and wine remaining-which conversion indeed the Catholic Church most aptly calls Transubstantiation; let him be anathema.’ The relevant word there being ‘species’, its clear the council and therefore the church has accepted the ‘Aristotelian philosphical underpinnings’ as you call it.

And yet the Church has repeatedly vindicated the orthodoxy of non-Thomists. The fact that a Council used philosophical terminology from Aristotle or whomever does not mean that they insist on the adoption of the Aristotelian system; this is a very well-known and well-understood principle.

 

[TrentCath]

You are confusing the universal Church with the particular Church. The fullness of the universal Church subsists in each particular Church. If war or natural disaster were to isolate a single bishop with his flock up in the mountains somewhere for the rest of the world, it wouldn’t matter to them whether the rest of the Church continued to exist or not, or whether they would ever access them. I’m sorry but this simply isnt true, you can see this from the conduct of St Athanasius who when isolated due to the heresy of Apostasy of many other bishops rather than considering that it did not matter whether the rest of the church existed made streneous attempts to contact the western Church and ensure that they too were Orthodox and in communion with himThe Catholic Church would still exist in that one see. Like a typical Westerner, you forget that the Church is a Mystery - not something you can rationalize about. The Church is divine and the Church is human; the Church is local and the Church is universal.**I’m sorry, this simpy isnt the theology of the church. It may be Orthodox Theology but it isnt the theology of the church, you wil struggle to find a single Ecumenical Council, Catechism or Papal Enyclical that supports that position. **

My Church is one, holy, Catholic, and Apostolic. If you deny this then you are a heretic. Until you find an authority to back that statement up then that remains opinion and sadly you dont have the authority to declare me a herectic.

I say we ARE the one, holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church. You say that we are “part” of it. But whichever terminology you use - either is correct - goes for the Church of Rome as well. We are not part of the Roman Catholic Church, and in theory we are canonically completely independent (sui juris). To say that the Roman Rite IS the Catholic Church whereas the Eastern Churches are just parts of it is the sort of ritual triumphalism that the Orthodox have rightly rejected. The church in Rome IS The One Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church as much can be seen by even a cursory glance at either the Council of Florence, Council of Trent, Vatican I or Vatican II. We are all part of that Roman Church because of our obeidence to the pope and his teachings

There have always been Eastern Churches, and always been Eastern Churches in communion with Rome (the Italo-Greeks and the Maronites, for example), and throughout most of history it has been unclear whether many churches (in Russia, Serbia, and the so-called “Nestorian” Church of the East) were in communion with Rome or not. Even today the schism is not complete as intercommunion and dual communion are frequently practiced in some parts of the world.Whether its practiced or not is really irrellevant, one cannot be in communion with the church unless one accepts its doctrines. To do otherwise is a grave delict and has always been condemned by the Church, Canon Law and the Church Fathers

Schism between the Orthodox Churches and Rome, insofar as the schism was real, did not mean that they were no longer part of the Catholic Church, only that their communion with her was imperfect. I think you’ll find that the meaning of schism is to cease being in communion with and the obstinate refusal of multiple ‘Ecmenical Patriarchs’ goes well beyond Material Schism into Formal Schism

The Melkite bishops may have been present, but refused to sign the documents without appending statements clarifying their rights and dignity, which Rome recognized.I really don’t care whether the Melkite bishops did or didn’t sign the documents, happily for us the church doesnt need their signatures merely a majority of the Council Fathers votes and the approval of the Pope Rome does not define doctrine for us; we are perfectly capable of doing that for ourselves, thank you very much.This statement is so blatantly anathema to the Churches teaching that I have no need to say anything more about it.

You quoted two statements which clearly are discussing different meanings of “church”. Rome as a PARTICULAR Church is “mistress and mother of the Churches” insofar as as she is Queen of the Churches by virtue of her primacy. That the Roman Church could be mistress of the other Churches implies that their are other Churches. ** churches with a small c and seeing as the council mainly deals with papal infallibility and uses the terms Roman and ‘The Church’ and ‘Holy Mother Church’ interchangeably it can hardly be said that it is referring to a particular church******

Historically in the early Church bishops were elected by their flock, not appointed by the Pope. **Thats an interesting historical fact but its just that a historical fact. The First Vatican Council states 'So, then,

if anyone says that
    the Roman pontiff has merely an office of supervision and guidance, and
        not the full and supreme power of jurisdiction over the whole church, and this
        not only in matters of
            faith and morals, but also in those which concern the
            discipline and government of the church dispersed throughout the whole world; or that 
    he has only the principal part, but not the absolute fullness, of this supreme power; or that
    this power of his is not ordinary and immediate both over all and each of the churches and over all and each of the pastors and faithful:
let him be anathema. ' I'm pretty sure that gives the pope the right to appoint bishops. **

I never disagreed with the inerrancy of the Bible.I’m Glad

If they have no errors of faith, and are an expression of Tradition, then yes they are a written record of the deposit of Faith.Not according to the council of Trent

 

[TrentCath]

The words are completely different.

That’s several hundred years of Western theology - it IS supported by 2,000 years of Oriental theology, the theology of the people whose Liturgy it actually is.

If we are to accept all the teachings of the Church, then we must accept this decision as well. Therefore instead of saying that it undermines the teaching of an ecumenical council, understand that it deepens the teaching instead.No it does not deepen it contradicts. Declaring Mary to be Immaculately Conceived deepens teaching, saying the opposite of ecumenical councils doesnt deepen it contradicts

A Roman Mass or Greek Liturgy without the Words of Institution would be invalid. That’s the point Trent was making.** You can however look at the council of florence ‘However, since no explanation was given in the aforesaid decree of the Armenians in respect of the form of words which the holy Roman church, relying on the teaching and authority of the apostles Peter and Paul, has always been wont to use in the consecration of the Lord’s body and blood, we concluded that it should be inserted in this present text. It uses this form of words in the consecration of the Lord’s body: For this is my body. And of his blood: For this is the chalice of my blood, of the new and everlasting covenant, which will be shed for you and for many unto the remission of sins’ Why bother telling them to insert the words if it wasnt necessary? The matter is further clarified in the section on The Form of The Eucharist in the Catechism of the Council of Trent **

And yet the Church has repeatedly vindicated the orthodoxy of non-Thomists. The fact that a Council used philosophical terminology from Aristotle or whomever does not mean that they insist on the adoption of the Aristotelian system; this is a very well-known and well-understood principle.**That seems like a rather bizzare statement to make. Transubstantiation is in someways an Aristotelian term, the very name has particular ‘baggage’ so to speak and would hardly have been adopted if the Council didnt approve of the philosphy **

 

[TrentCath]

Vatican II taught the equal dignity of all the rites. If the Roman Church IS the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church and the others are not, then (a) the other rites would not be equal to it, which is heresy, and (b) Greek Catholics would be outside (even if in communion with) the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic, which is schism. I protest that I am as Catholic as the Pope. You can protest all you want but seeing as you clearly dont hold to the Roman doctrine, all your protesting isnt going to achieve much

No, they are rites within the Roman Catholic Church. And No it is a church (with a small c) that makes up the Roman Catholic Church.

 

[ciero]

no, they are rites within the roman catholic church. And no it is a church (with a small c) that makes up the roman catholic church.

**heresy !!!
**