How many ecumenical councils?

[Wandile]

It’s is normaly a given that the Catholic Church accepts 21 Ecumenical councils. However some eastern catholics like the melkites earthy of newton accede it only seven. How is this maintained when their own hierarchy signed the acts of the Second Vatican Council whit in its openingspeech it is stated :

"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 ECUMENICAL COUNCILS OF THE CHURCH

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

…It is but natural that in opening this Universal Council we should like to look to the past and to listen to its voices whose echo we like to hear in the memories and the merits of the more recent and ancient Pontiffs, our predecessors. These are solemn and venerable voices, throughout the East and the West, from the fourth century to the Middle Ages, and from there to modern times, which have handed down their witness to those Councils. They are voices which proclaim in perennial fervor the triumph of that divine and human institution, the Church of Christ, which from Jesus takes its name, its grace, and its meaning.

HOW TO REPRESS ERRORS

…That being so, the Catholic Church, raising the torch of religious truth by means of this Ecumenical Council, desires to show herself to be the loving mother of all, benign, patient, full of mercy and goodness toward the brethren who are separated from her. "

As per this speech of Pope St. John XXIII ther were twenty previous ecumenical councils of the Church and the Vatican Council last century was the 21st and second ecumenical council of the Vatican.

I’ve heard it being said there is no official list yet here is a solemn definition by the Roman bishop in communion with all the bishops of the world affirming these words that there are in fact officially 21 holy ecumenical councils.

So how do some eastern catholics could tiniest to maintain thee have only been seven?

 

[SyroMalankara]

The Ecumenicity of the Council is not necessarily a point of contention as long as what is elucidated is accepted. In the case of many of the latter Councils, “Ecumenical” or not, they are applicable only to Latin Church concerns

 

[Wandile]

But who a council relates to does not negate it’s ecumenicity if it is generally accepted by the church together with the Roman Pontif.

The 1st and 4th councils of Constantinople were eastern affairs about eastern issues which really had nothing to do with the west yet they are ecumenical.

The 1st more so which lacked any western representation. So why do some eastern catholics deny post schism councils their ecumenicity?

I do agree though, that acceptance of the councils decrees is most important.

 

[SyroMalankara]

But who a council relates to does not negate it’s ecumenicity if it is generally accepted by the church together with the Roman Pontif.

Ok

The 1st and 4th councils of Constantinople were eastern affairs about eastern issues which really had nothing to do with the west yet they are ecumenical.

They were declared by the Patriarch of the Occidental Church to be binding on His Patriarchate.

The 1st more so which lacked any western representation. So why do some eastern catholics deny post schism councils their ecumenicity?

Because the top-down acceptance is one level of acceptance, there is also the bottom-up acceptance. In the case of the latter Councils (some say after the first 2, others after the first 3, and others after the first 7), either the top-down, bottom-up, or full acknowledgement of the Ecumene was lacking in the fullness that the others had.

 

[Wandile]

Ok

They were declared by the Patriarch of the Occidental Church to be binding on His Patriarchate.

Only after he had discovered that such a council had even happened. It was binding only in so far as it did not contradict the west. Very few if any of what the council implemented was implemented in the West besides the Creed which only gained gradual acceptance over a few centuries in the West. It really is the parallel of the post schism ecumenical councils which were really western centered.

Because the top-down acceptance is one level of acceptance, there is also the bottom-up acceptance.

Yes

In the case of the latter Councils (some say after the first 2, others after the first 3, and others after the first 7), either the top-down, bottom-up, or full acknowledgement of the Ecumene was lacking in the fullness that the others had.

Well all in the Catholic Church acknowledge the councils and have accepted them. That was most manifestly made evident by signing the documents of Vatican II which in its own acts claims itself to be the 21st ecumenical/general council.

 

[prodromos]

Well all in the Catholic Church acknowledge the councils and have accepted them. That was most manifestly made evident by signing the documents of Vatican II which in its own acts claims itself to be the 21st ecumenical/general council.

Doesn’t it bother you that Vatican II declares itself to be ecumenical? No other council made such a claim of itself.

 

[Wandile]

Doesn’t it bother you that Vatican II declares itself to be ecumenical? No other council made such a claim of itself.

Actually many countries councils have in the Catholic Church. Vatican II was certainly not the first to claim itself ecumenical.

 

[MorEphrem]

The contention is predicated on the etymology of the word:
etymonline.com:

from Greek oikoumenikos “from the whole world”

Trent was clearly not representative of the whole world. Now whether or not one accepts papal affirmation as the condition of ecumenicity is another story, but the contention arises from a very basic issue. As to the individual Church’s assent - it should not be a surprise, whether or not papal affirmation constitutes ecumenicity, that there are claims that Eastern patriarchs participated in certain previous councils under duress. The Council of Florence is probably a good, minimally controversial example.

Anyway, as SyroMalankara said, one can assent to the content of a council without agreeing to the title and there is no issue other than applied terminology.

 

[Wandile]

The contention is predicated on the etymology of the word:

Trent was clearly not representative of the whole world. Now whether or not one accepts papal affirmation as the condition of ecumenicity is another story, but the contention arises from a very basic issue. As to the individual Church’s assent - it should not be a surprise, whether or not papal affirmation constitutes ecumenicity, that there are claims that Eastern patriarchs participated in certain previous councils under duress. The Council of Florence is probably a good, minimally controversial example.

Anyway, as SyroMalankara said, one can assent to the content of a council without agreeing to the title and there is no issue other than applied terminology.

So for a council of to be ecumenical, schismatic bodies and heretical bodies must also have a say? What happened to The Catholic Church is the Church Christ established?

Because by this standard the last truly ecumenical council was Constantinople I

 

[MorEphrem]

So for a council of to be ecumenical, schismatic bodies and heretical bodies must also have a say? What happened to The Catholic Church is the Church Christ established?

Because by this standard the last truly ecumenical council was Constantinople I

I never said anything of the sort. But frankly, to the Eastern reasoning, the Latin Church has had an abundance of local synods and has declared them all ecumenical councils (in spite of what the word actually means) - again, see SyroMalankara’s previous posts.

 

[Axiosaxiosaxios]

Seven.

 

[Wandile]

So what about Vaticann II’s statements and all your clerics who signed it’s documents affirming itself as the 21st ecumenical synod?

 

[prodromos]

Actually many countries councils have in the Catholic Church. Vatican II was certainly not the first to claim itself ecumenical.

Which other councils have called themselves “Ecumenical”?
To the best of my knowledge , councils have only been declared “Ecumenical” by subsequent councils. Vatcan II seems to be unique in that regard.

Actually, now that I think about it, there might have been a couple of ‘robber’ councils which called themselves “Ecumenical”, so maybe Vatican II isn’t so unique after all.

 

[Vico]

Which other councils have called themselves “Ecumenical”?
To the best of my knowledge , councils have only been declared “Ecumenical” by subsequent councils. Vatcan II seems to be unique in that regard.

Actually, now that I think about it, there might have been a couple of ‘robber’ councils which called themselves “Ecumenical”, so maybe Vatican II isn’t so unique after all.

There have been many, and “A council is never ecumenical unless it is confirmed or at least accepted as such by the successor of Peter”.

Lumen Gentium (of Vatican II):

1. Just as in the Gospel, the Lord so disposing, St. Peter and the other apostles constitute one apostolic college, so in a similar way the Roman Pontiff, the successor of Peter, and the bishops, the successors of the apostles, are joined together. Indeed, the very ancient practice whereby bishops duly established in all parts of the world were in communion with one another and with the Bishop of Rome in a bond of unity, charity and peace,(23*) and also the councils assembled together,(24*) in which more profound issues were settled in common, (25*) the opinion of the many having been prudently considered,(26*) both of these factors are already an indication of the collegiate character and aspect of the Episcopal order; and the ecumenical councils held in the course of centuries are also manifest proof of that same character. And it is intimated also in the practice, introduced in ancient times, of summoning several bishops to take part in the elevation of the newly elected to the ministry of the high priesthood. Hence, one is constituted a member of the Episcopal body in virtue of sacramental consecration and hierarchical communion with the head and members of the body.

…

A council is never ecumenical unless it is confirmed or at least accepted as such by the successor of Peter; and it is prerogative of the Roman Pontiff to convoke these councils, to preside over them and to confirm them.(29*)

 

[prodromos]

There have been many

Then you should be able to quote some examples (and robber councils don’t count)

 

[Vico]

Then you should be able to quote some examples (and robber councils don’t count)

The Catholic teaching is that some councils are ecumenical, not that the bishops at the council call the council ecumenical when having the council. In the quote below, note that to be under the presidency of the pope or his legates does not mean that the pope is in attendance or that he calls the council.

Catholic Encyclopedia:

Councils are, then, from their nature, a common effort of the Church, or part of the Church, for self-preservation and self-defence. They appear at her very origin, in the time of the Apostles at Jerusalem, and throughout her whole history whenever faith or morals or discipline are seriously threatened. Although their object is always the same, the circumstances under which they meet impart to them a great variety, which renders a classification necessary. Taking territorial extension for a basis, seven kinds of synods are distinguished.

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

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

There are twenty-listed through Vatican I. Since then was Vatican II.

Wilhelm, J. (1908). General Councils. In The Catholic Encyclopedia. New York: Robert Appleton Company. newadvent.org/cathen/04423f.htm

 

[chimo]

An Ecumenical Council can only be considered Ecumenical if it includes the Eastern Orthodox Church. Since it was the Eastern Orthodox Church that had attended to the first seven general Ecumenical Councils than by their own definition any other councils afterwards that has not their participation is not considered Ecumenical. For a council to be Ecumenical it must follow the guidelines of the first Seven Councils. From this the councils to unite the Church for instance like Florence is not considered to be Ecumenical since it was only an attempt from the Church of Rome to established better relations with the Eastern Orthodox Church. It would not matter anyway since the Council was generally rejected by the Orthodox. A council needs the support of the next generation if that council is to accepted by the whole Church. So the first general seven Ecumenical Councils were only accepted as Ecumenical when the next generation would come to accept it. Council decisions were not put into effect right away because it needed time for it to be established and accepted.

 

[prodromos]

The Catholic teaching is that some councils are ecumenical, not that the bishops at the council call the council ecumenical when having the council. In the quote below, note that to be under the presidency of the pope or his legates does not mean that the pope is in attendance or that he calls the council.

Catholic Encyclopedia:

Councils are, then, from their nature, a common effort of the Church, or part of the Church, for self-preservation and self-defence. They appear at her very origin, in the time of the Apostles at Jerusalem, and throughout her whole history whenever faith or morals or discipline are seriously threatened. Although their object is always the same, the circumstances under which they meet impart to them a great variety, which renders a classification necessary. Taking territorial extension for a basis, seven kinds of synods are distinguished.

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

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

There are twenty-listed through Vatican I. Since then was Vatican II.

Wilhelm, J. (1908). General Councils. In The Catholic Encyclopedia. New York: Robert Appleton Company. newadvent.org/cathen/04423f.htm

I get the impression that you misunderstand the point I have been trying to make, since none of what you have posted answers my question.

 

[Vico]

I get the impression that you misunderstand the point I have been trying to make, since none of what you have posted answers my question.

Do you mean one of these?

Doesn’t it bother you that Vatican II declares itself to be ecumenical?
Which other councils have called themselves “Ecumenical”?

I think I did answer it, with no other, because: “The Catholic teaching is that some councils are ecumenical, not that the bishops at the council call the council ecumenical when having the council”

 

[prodromos]

I give up