Ecumenical Councils and Eastern Catholics

[theistgal]

heresy !!!

Don’t be so quick to fling that charge around. There are Orthodox who would say you are guilty of heresy for describing yourself as “Orthodox in communion with Rome”.

 

[TrentCath]

heresy !!!

Well at least for once it wasnt the Roman Catholic that threw that charge out…

 

[tdgesq]

If you are looking for a specific document that lists 21 council as ecumenical then yes you are right no such document exists.

In his opening address to the Second Vatican Council, Pope John the XXIII states:

Mother Church rejoices that, by the singular gift of Divine Providence, the longed-for day has finally dawned when – under the auspices of the virgin Mother of God, whose maternal dignity is commemorated on this feast – the Second Vatican Ecumenical Council is being solemnly opened here beside St. Peter’s tomb.

The Councils – both the twenty ecumenical ones and the numberless others, also important, of a provincial or regional character which have been held down through the years – all prove clearly the vigor of the Catholic Church and are recorded as shining lights in her annals.

In calling this vast assembly of bishops, the latest and humble successor to the Prince of the Apostles who is addressing you intended to assert once again the Magisterium (teaching authority), which is unfailing and perdures until the end of time, in order that this Magisterium, taking into account the errors, the requirements, and the opportunities of our time, might be presented in exceptional form to all men throughout the world.

ourladyswarriors.org/teach/v2open.htm

Many of the western councils after Nicaea II declare that they are ecumenical councils; specifically the Council of Trent, which declares numerous times within the actual conciliar documents that it is ecumenical.

Among Eastern Catholics, some of the strongest objections to the later councils as being recognized as ecumenical come from the Melkite Greek Catholic Church.

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]

In his opening address to the Second Vatican Council, Pope John the XXIII states:

Mother Church rejoices that, by the singular gift of Divine Providence, the longed-for day has finally dawned when – under the auspices of the virgin Mother of God, whose maternal dignity is commemorated on this feast – the Second Vatican Ecumenical Council is being solemnly opened here beside St. Peter’s tomb.

The Councils – both the twenty ecumenical ones and the numberless others, also important, of a provincial or regional character which have been held down through the years – all prove clearly the vigor of the Catholic Church and are recorded as shining lights in her annals.

In calling this vast assembly of bishops, the latest and humble successor to the Prince of the Apostles who is addressing you intended to assert once again the Magisterium (teaching authority), which is unfailing and perdures until the end of time, in order that this Magisterium, taking into account the errors, the requirements, and the opportunities of our time, might be presented in exceptional form to all men throughout the world.

ourladyswarriors.org/teach/v2open.htm

Many of the western councils after Nicaea II declare that they are ecumenical councils; specifically the Council of Trent, which declares numerous times within the actual conciliar documents that it is ecumenical.

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.

Thanks for that document

And I’m surpsied I see the dogmatic conclusions rejected rather frequently…

 

[Vico]

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.

See page 32 of New commentary on the Code of Canon Law By John P. Beal, James A. Coriden, Thomas J. Green

Membership in the Catholic Church is never “at large”; instead a person is enrolled in a specific church sui iuris, determined according to law.

 

[tdgesq]

Thanks for that document

You are welcome.

And I’m surpsied I see the dogmatic conclusions rejected rather frequently…

Perhaps by some individual ECC posters, but then again you also see this from certain RCC posters. I think most of the Melkites here would agree with my assessment though.

 

[TrentCath]

You are welcome.

Perhaps by some individual ECC posters, but then again you also see this from certain RCC posters. I think most of the Melkites here would agree with my assessment though.

Thats true but frankly I’ve yet to see one poster especially Melkite whose willing to subscribe to the dogma’s of say the First Vatican Council, without attempting to interpret them in a sense that doesnt fit with the source text.

 

[ConstantineTG]

Sui juris means ‘governed according to ones owns laws’.

How is this different from “self governing”?
If you make your own laws to govern yourself, then you are self governing, right?

 

[Fone_Bone_2001]

I apologize in advance if anything I say degenerates into any western ignorance or Latin triumphalism. This is a fascinating issue that I often have trouble understanding, and I welcome the greater understanding that others can help me achieve.

Among Eastern Catholics, some of the strongest objections to the later councils as being recognized as ecumenical come from the Melkite Greek Catholic Church.

For example, from their official US webpage:

"40. Was the Vatican Council an ecumenical council? Why? Why Not?

A The Vatican council was not an ecumenical council – no participation from the Orthodox"

melkite.org/Challenge2007C.htm

I’ve never understood that argument. The fact that no Latins whatsoever participated in the First Council of Constantinople (381) doesn’t prevent the Catholic Church from considering it ecumenical…

I often am wrong about these things, so I really hope someone can set me straight, but I’m really surprised that the Melkite Catholics don’t consider Vatican II ecumenical for that reason - which, at least by itself, does not make sense. Bishops from all throughout the Church participated in Vatican II, and the East was certainly well represented. The Melkite Patriarch himself, Maximos IV, was particularly active in the council. How could Vatican II - which included more bishops than any other council and from both West and East, and which did deal with universally relevant doctrinal teachings such as episcopal ordination’s Sacramental status, the structure of the Church, etc. - be anything but ecumenical?

The Orientals are likewise justified in reducing the number of ecumenical councils to those in which they participated.

Do all Orientals do this?

Marduk, on this forum, is of the opinion that there have been eleven ecumenical councils: the seven ones accepted by the Catholic and Orthodox Churches, plus Florence, Trent, Vatican I, and Vatican II.

I don’t think any ecumenical council since Nicea I (or maybe Constantinople I) has had every bishop in the Church present, and maybe not even those (there may have been and probably were bishops in India who may not have been invited, for example). Doesn’t affect a council’s authority, but it does mean that a country whose bishops did not attend have a legitimate point in regarding it just as a local council.

But there is no council in which every living bishop of the world participated. Does that mean someone can assert that there’s no such thing as an ecumenical council? Does the status of a council not necessarily have an objective relevance?

7 of those 21 are Ecumenical Councils, without question.

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

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

Is it valid from a Catholic perspective - and I don’t mean a purely Latin perspective - to make a distinction between “a general council of the Catholic Communion” and “an ecumenical council”?

I’m not sure it is. At least, if it is, I don’t understand how. Regardless of its conciliar status, I believe Vatican II that the fullness of Christ’s Church subsists in the Catholic Church. So is it possible that a general council of the Catholic Communion is anything but ecumenical?

 

[Fone_Bone_2001]

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

Why not treat them on a case-by-case basis? Even if my above reasoning is correct - and it may not be, I await responses - that doesn’t necessarily mean there must be 21 ecumenical councils. Marduk’s opinion on this matter makes a great deal of sense to me. He considers most of the last 14 to be councils of the Latin Church - but he considers Florence, Trent, Vatican I, and Vatican II to be ecumenical.

As far as Vatican II, the West would be wise to either scrap it or actually implement its real intentions and go back to looking like a real religion anyway

I find most of what you’ve said to be a refreshing beacon of clarity, Cecilianus. But I must confess I’m disturbed at your flippant, disrespectful attitude toward Vatican II… I wonder what Maximos IV, Melkite Patriarch during the council, would think of the attitude of some eastern Catholics today toward Vatican II…

The Council of Constantinople-Blachernae in 1351 should have as much claim as the later Western Councils to be ratified as an Ecumenical Council

Well, why not? If we achieved reunion between the Catholic Church and the Orthodox Church, why couldn’t the pope of Rome ratify as ecumenical Constantinople-Blachernae?

I have trouble understanding why the absence of one communion – the Catholic or the Orthodox – should make such a big difference to either side in this regard…

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 hope you’re right.

An ecumenical council attended exclusively or predominantly by Roman Catholics is going to be a “Latin” council;

But then why doesn’t the Catholic Church consider Constantinople I a “Greek” council?

a council where these bishops are a bunch of 1960s hippies is going to, as you say, muddy the waters.

You can’t seriously think this about Vatican II…

 

[Cecilianus]

Fone Bone: My apologies for my distaste for Vatican II. It did us a lot of wonders, but the liturgical aftermath wreaked havoc in the Western Church. Try living in Minnesota without going to any of the Eastern Rite churches, and you’ll see what I mean.

The true legacy of Vatican II is the nouvelle theologie, the renewed appreciation for the East, and priestly institutes like the FSSP and the Institute of Christ the King Sovereign Priest.

 

[Cecilianus]

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.

This is not so much a heresy as a factual error. I am not a Roman Catholic any more than I am a Lutheran - as a matter of simple fact.

The “Roman Catholic Church” in contemporary semantics means the Roman Rite of the Church, a sui juris Church independent of the Greek Churches, whose Patriarch is the Bishop of Rome.

I always capitalize the word Church. If you don’t, that’s no grounds for disagreement.

 

[Cecilianus]

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.

The Church has always recognized the difference between particular churches and the universal Church. We’ve always practiced that distinction, and it’s enshrined in canon law. And yes, it is the theology of the Church.

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.

My authority is that I am in communion with Rome who acknowledges that my Church is one, holy, Catholic, and Apostolic, my bishop received his panagia from the Pope of Rome, and if you deny that my Church is one, holy, Catholic, and Apostolic you are putting yourself in opposition to Rome with whom I am in communion and making yourself a heretic.

We are all part of that Roman Church because of our obeidence to the pope and his teachings.

No, we’re not. There are many rites of the Church besides the Roman, and this is really a factual error on your part not a theological disagreement. The term “Roman Church” in this discussion refers to the particular Western Church. If you want to use the term “Roman Church” to refer the whole Catholic Church by virtue of its communion with the Pope and fidelity to the teachings of the Church of Rome, then (a) you are using the term incorrectly, and (b) who cares. That’s not what we’re talking about.

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

I do accept its doctrines, and my Church never needed to define them because nobody here ever departed from them.

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

Actually if you’ll read St. Jerome you’ll find that the meaning of schism is rebellion against one’s bishop, which is clearly not the case here. The Pope is the bishop of Rome, not the bishop of Moscow, and the Russian Orthodox are in fact obedient to their bishop. You’ll find a very conservative Roman Catholic blogger, Fr. Zuhlsdorf, who just wrote an article about this a couple weeks ago. The term is also used, however, to refer to the rupture of communion between two bishops - regardless of whether the Bishop of Rome is one of these, as he often was not in the early Church - and in this case the two bishops are in schism from each other, and are both equally “schismatics”.

This statement is so blatantly anathema to the Churches teaching that I have no need to say anything more about it.

Actually the Church teaches that we are sui juris and capable of maintaining the Orthodox Faith for ourselves without being babied by the Pope. If Constantinople were to fall into heresy, the Church of Rome would correct her - as she did when she, together with the other Eastern Bishops, corrected Nestorius and the Iconoclasts. The dogmatic definitions issued by the Roman Church since 787 were issued against heretics in the West, except for the failed union councils of Lyons and Florence. They were not issued to us, and the Pope is not defining dogma “for us” - he is doing it for the West, and as we accept the Orthodoxy of the Western Church we do not dispute the truths of the dogmas defined. But they still don’t really concern us.

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.

Legal right to do so does not mean that it is best for the Church, and nor does it compromise the fact that we are sui juris, as was clarified to the Melkite bishops at Vatican I. The Pope had the right to scrap his 1300-hundred-year-old Liturgy for a made up one. I don’t think he should have.

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

Where? Where did Trent say that there is no historical record outside of Scripture of the deposit of Faith? That is the sola scriptura heresy, my friend.

All the writings of the Church Fathers are expressions or records of Tradition, subject to the historical method. And many of these contain no errors of faith.

 

[Cecilianus]

Thats true but frankly I’ve yet to see one poster especially Melkite whose willing to subscribe to the dogma’s of say the First Vatican Council, without attempting to interpret them in a sense that doesnt fit with the source text.

We interpret them in the sense clarified for the benefit of the Melkite Bishops by the Pope. Is that a problem?

 

[TrentCath]

How is this different from “self governing”?
If you make your own laws to govern yourself, then you are self governing, right?

I did spend some time explaining the difference underneath. Being governed according to ones own laws means it is still possible for someone else e.g not the patriarch or bishop from that church to govern you according to your own laws. Self-Governing means that the ‘particular church’ governs itself to the exclusion of any ‘external authority’. This is impossible due to the Popes ‘Supreme, general and Plenary Jurisdiction’ which was implicity and explcitly confirmed by almost every ecumenical council since the Council of Florence. It can be seen most explicitly confirmed by the First Vatican Council where it says '*Wherefore we teach and declare that,

by divine ordinance,
the Roman church possesses a pre-eminence of ordinary power over every other church, and that
this jurisdictional power of the Roman pontiff is both
    episcopal and
    immediate. 
Both clergy and faithful,
    of whatever rite and dignity,
    both singly and collectively, 
are bound to submit to this power by the duty of hierarchical subordination and true obedience, and this
    not only in matters concerning faith and morals,
    but also in those which regard the discipline and government of the church throughout the world*.'

Hence it simply isnt possible to be self-governing or as the Orthodox would say autocephalous, because all the clergy and faithful are bound to submit to the power of the Pope.

 

[TrentCath]

We interpret them in the sense clarified for the benefit of the Melkite Bishops by the Pope. Is that a problem?

Would you care to link me to this clarification or at least tell me where I could find it?

 

[TrentCath]

See page 32 of New commentary on the Code of Canon Law By John P. Beal, James A. Coriden, Thomas J. Green

Membership in the Catholic Church is never “at large”; instead a person is enrolled in a specific church sui iuris, determined according to law.

I think one has to distinguish between the legal framework and doctrinal framework here. According to Canon Law (or at least what passes for it these days) 'a person is enrolled in a specific church sui iuris) but all are part of the Roman Catholic Church, in the sense that that church is the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church. I humbly submit that this can be seen from the documents of the First Vatican Council which I have referred to time and time again and which unlike Canon law or a commentary on law is infallible and irreformable.

 

[TrentCath]

This is not so much a heresy as a factual error. I am not a Roman Catholic any more than I am a Lutheran - as a matter of simple fact.I’m afraid here we’ll have to disagree

The “Roman Catholic Church” in contemporary semantics means the Roman Rite of the Church, a sui juris Church independent of the Greek Churches, whose Patriarch is the Bishop of Rome.Seeing as the Pope dropped the title ‘Patriarch of the West’ I’m not sure how thats going to work

I always capitalize the word Church. If you don’t, that’s no grounds for disagreement.**No I was just more clarifying to make it clearer the distinction between ‘churches’ in the sense of sui iuris ‘churches’ and The Church **

 

[Fone_Bone_2001]

Fone Bone: My apologies for my distaste for Vatican II. It did us a lot of wonders, but the liturgical aftermath wreaked havoc in the Western Church. Try living in Minnesota without going to any of the Eastern Rite churches, and you’ll see what I mean.

The true legacy of Vatican II is the nouvelle theologie, the renewed appreciation for the East, and priestly institutes like the FSSP and the Institute of Christ the King Sovereign Priest.

Fair enough. I guess I’ve just never understood laying the blame for such things at the feet of the council itself. Sure, the same currents of change that inspired much of the council may also have been the inspiration for subsequent western abusive liturgical innovations, but that doesn’t change the fact that such abuses were nonetheless actually contrary even to the spirit of Vatican II…

But my diocese has plenty of reverent, obedient parishes, so I suppose I may be biased because of that. Plus, I wasn’t born until the late 1980s, so I probably didn’t even live to see the most egregious abuses…

 

[TrentCath]

The Church has always recognized the difference between particular churches and the universal Church.

It’s clear we’re not going to agree on this matter, frankly I dont think that Vatican I distinguishes between the Roman Church and the universal church

…]my bishop received his panagia from the Pope of Rome, and if you deny that my Church is one, holy, Catholic, and Apostolic you are putting yourself in opposition to Rome with whom I am in communion and making yourself a heretic. This is flawed logic, being in communion is not an authority, an ecumenical council is and to a lesser extent so is a papal encyclial, find one and then come back to me. Until then you don’t have any authority on which to call me a Heretic.

No, we’re not. There are many rites of the Church besides the Roman, and this is really a factual error on your part not a theological disagreement. No one said there weren’t any different rites, re-read what I said If you want to use the term “Roman Church” to refer the whole Catholic Church by virtue of its communion with the Pope and fidelity to the teachings of the Church of Rome, then (a) you are using the term incorrectly, Not according to most of the 14 later ecumenical councils that use the term in that wayand (b) who cares. Me

I do accept its doctrines, and my Church never needed to define them because nobody here ever departed from them.No, because of course the entire Orthodox Church refusing to accept Papal infallibility, the supreme and plenary jurisdiction of the pope, indulgences, purgatory or the crowing of Mary as queen of heaven and Earth arent departing from the doctrines of the church…

Actually if you’ll read St. Jerome you’ll find that the meaning of schism is rebellion against one’s bishop, which is clearly not the case here. The Pope is the bishop of Rome, not the bishop of Moscow, and the Russian Orthodox are in fact obedient to their bishop. The pope is also the ‘head of the church militant’ (see Vatican I for that definition), to claim that disobeying your bishop is schism but disobeying the head of the church militant isnt is clearly illogical

Actually the Church teaches that we are sui juris and capable of maintaining the Orthodox Faith for ourselves without being babied by the Pope. The issue with this is rather simple. Dogma and doctrines develop, they are not just always handed on as is from the deposit of faith. As Dogmas and Doctrines develop they are confirmed by or developed by Rome and then expounded by it, so yes you do need Rome to either confirm or develop Dogmas as Rome does for the WHOLE church West and East If Constantinople were to fall into heresy, the Church of Rome would correct her… The dogmatic definitions issued by the Roman Church since 787 were issued against heretics in the West, except for the failed union councils of Lyons and Florence. They were not issued to us, and the Pope is not defining dogma “for us” -The pope is defining Dogma for the ENTIRE church, West and East, its impossible to come to another conclusion if you have even a cursory glance at many of the ecumenical councils he is doing it for the West, and as we accept the Orthodoxy of the Western Church we do not dispute the truths of the dogmas defined. But they still don’t really concern us.The truth being universal I think its rather illogical to claim that the truths dont concern you, you could claim that most of the canons of some of the councils don’t but you can’t claim the Dogma doesnt

Legal right to do so does not mean that it is best for the Church, and nor does it compromise the fact that we are sui juris, as was clarified to the Melkite bishops at Vatican I. **Again I believe the First Vatican Council disagrees with you ‘That which our lord Jesus Christ, the prince of shepherds and great shepherd of the sheep, established in the blessed apostle Peter, for the continual salvation and permanent benefit of the church, must of necessity remain for ever, by Christ’s authority, in the church which, founded as it is upon a rock, will stand firm until the end of time [45] .’ After establishing that Peter had was ‘…supreme pastor and ruler of all the fold’ the Council states that this was for the continual salvation and permenant benefit of the Church. The Council goes on to demonstrate how the Popes are the legitmate succesors of St Peter and have all his power and authority. The fact is your point view is in direct contradiction to the De Fide doctrines of Vatican I

As ‘sui juris’ I’ve already been through this, it does NOT mean self-governing, it means governed according to ones own laws. Governed by whom? The bishops, Patriarch and… the Pope** The Pope had the right to scrap his 1300-hundred-year-old Liturgy for a made up one. Whether he did or did not have that right is somewhat disputed by many Traditionalist groups including the SSPX, I personally do not believe he did have that right

Where? Where did Trent say that there is no historical record outside of Scripture of the deposit of Faith? That is not what i said but you cannot equate a non scriptural work, that was explicitly rejected by a sacred ecumenical councils and excluded with the canon with such force that the same council declared anathema any who thought the canon of scripture had more or less books with scripture.

All the writings of the Church Fathers are expressions or records of Tradition, subject to the historical method. **But none are of equal weight to Scripture, read the enyclicals I mentioned before If you want confirmation of this. Also logically why would the church fathers reference scripture if they believed themselves equal to it? They would have no need of its authority if their authority was sufficient.**And many of these contain no errors of faith.