Melkites and their beliefs about Rome

[tdgesq]

Btw, Wandile and jimkhong, don’t feel obliged to answer this but I’ll ask it for the sake of completeness: Aside from the number-of-Ecumenical-Councils question, how many *ex cathedra *statements have there been?

I must agree with Peter here. I don’t know of any requirement that Catholics profess there are 21 ecumenical councils.

 

[jimkhong]

I must agree with Peter here. I don’t know of any requirement that Catholics profess there are 21 ecumenical councils.

I do accept that different parts of the Church have different lists of councils: something I am surprised to have learnt from Easterners in my short time on this Forum. Some of the 21 councils really had nothing to do with the East as they deal with disciplinary issues in the Latin church, the Latin liturgy and the legitimacy of the Latin patriarch.

But I am asking whether the Melkite church/patriarch/synod really do not consider Vatican II an Ecumenical Council and if so, why and how it reconciles their rejection with some teachings which seems to be so specifically directed to Eastern Catholics (Decree on Oriental Churches) or so applicable to a world wide church (Church in the Modern World). If they do not accept the Decree on Oriental Churches, which so explicitly attempts to define the role of Eastern Churches within the Catholic church, wouldn’t that be a schism?

 

[Wandile]

I’m curious: Do you have any explanation for why eight (8) councils were added to the “official” list of ecumenical councils, in one fell swoop, in the mid-16th century?

I have no explanation but if the Catholic Church states a council is ecumenical , then who am I to question why it has been regarded as such? Remember councils aren’t considered ecumenical immediately. Normally it takes some time before it is recognized as such.

Well, I don’t have a definite answer to that. I think we see the “burden of proof” as resting with those who say that a certain council is an ecumenical council. Also, you might consult the aforementioned link, but I wouldn’t take that as an official explanation.

But the burden if proof is on you as a catholic to disprove that there have been 21 ecumenical,councils as this is what the church teaches. The Melkite church teaches 21 ecumenical councils too doesn’t it? I know it recognizes Vatican 1 and 2

 

[Wandile]

Btw, Wandile and jimkhong, don’t feel obliged to answer this but I’ll ask it for the sake of completeness: Aside from the number-of-Ecumenical-Councils question, how many *ex cathedra *statements have there been?

Why do we need to have such a list? All we need to know is what is considered dogma and doctrine. How (By ex cathedra, ecumenical,councils etc) we came to believe that such teachings are dogma and doctrine is irrelevant. What matters is that the teaching is dogma.

But there is no such list. Although there decree on immaculate conception and assumption of Mary are two such examples of ex cathedra statements.

 

[Wandile]

I must agree with Peter here. I don’t know of any requirement that Catholics profess there are 21 ecumenical councils.

"…the Roman Catholic Church continues to hold general councils of those bishops in full communion with the Pope, reckoning them as ecumenical. In all, the Roman Catholic recognises twenty-one Councils as being Ecumenical. Anglicans and confessional Protestants, accept either the first seven or the first four as Ecumenical councils.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ecumenical_council#Acceptance_of_councils_by_denomination "

The Catholic Church officially teaches that there have been 21 ecumenical councils.

That’s why I’m curious as to how some me kites can teach that there are only seven when officially it is taught that there are 21

 

[Peter_J]

Still, I struggle to understand why Maximos would consider Vatican II where he participated (very energetically and with valuable (name removed by moderator)uts, IMHO) is not an Ecumenical council.

Good point. For that matter, I guess I should consider this morning’s breakfast an ecumenical council, since I participated in it energetically.

 

[Peter_J]

But joking aside, there were a bunch of other things I was thinking of saying, but for moment I’m just going to highlight this post in case anyone skipped it or read it too fast:

Why do we need to have such a list? All we need to know is what is considered dogma and doctrine. How (By ex cathedra, ecumenical,councils etc) we came to believe that such teachings are dogma and doctrine is irrelevant. What matters is that the teaching is dogma.

 

[Wandile]

Good point. For that matter, I guess I should consider this morning’s breakfast an ecumenical council, since I participated in it energetically.

Lol oh you Peter But at the end of the day and jokes aside… His participation at a council that claims to be ecumenical and signing of its documents are significant factors that cannot be brushed aside

 

[Zekariya]

This makes me think of the Oriental Orthodox and the Eastern Orthodox. The Eastern Orthodox Church recognizes seven Ecumenical Councils. The Oriental Orthodox Church only recognizes the first three Ecumenical Councils. The use of Icons was defended in the 7th Council. The Oriental Orthodox Church does not accept the 7th Council as ecumenical. Does this mean that the Oriental Orthodox Church rejects the use of Icons? The Oriental Orthodox Church agrees with the doctrine of Icons defended by the 7th Council, however, the she does not consider the 7th to be ecumenical.

The Melkite Catholic Church recognizes only seven Ecumenical Councils. Our Faith is the same Faith of Rome even though we do not recognize later Councils as being ecumenical.

 

[tdgesq]

But I am asking whether the Melkite church/patriarch/synod really do not consider Vatican II an Ecumenical Council and if so, why and how it reconciles their rejection with some teachings which seems to be so specifically directed to Eastern Catholics (Decree on Oriental Churches) or so applicable to a world wide church (Church in the Modern World). If they do not accept the Decree on Oriental Churches, which so explicitly attempts to define the role of Eastern Churches within the Catholic church, wouldn’t that be a schism?

"…the Roman Catholic Church continues to hold general councils of those bishops in full communion with the Pope, reckoning them as ecumenical. In all, the Roman Catholic recognises twenty-one Councils as being Ecumenical. Anglicans and confessional Protestants, accept either the first seven or the first four as Ecumenical councils.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ecumenical_council#Acceptance_of_councils_by_denomination "

The Catholic Church officially teaches that there have been 21 ecumenical councils.

That’s why I’m curious as to how some me kites can teach that there are only seven when officially it is taught that there are 21

I thought I would answer these questions together since they pose similar questions.

Many ECs do not define an “Ecumenical Council” the same way we do in the west. To those, a council is only “ecumenical” if it is accepted by all of the Eastern Churches, as is historically true of the first seven. As jimkhong pointed out, there is the additional reality that the decrees of many of the later councils simply do not apply to the east, as they are dealing with specifically Latin issues.

That isn’t to say that ECs are free to reject those decrees of later councils that do apply to them; and in my experience they generally do accept them. If you ask them how many ecumenical councils they accept though, don’t be surprised if the answer is seven. If you ask most RCs how many councils they accept, you will probably get a puzzled look and a lot of follow-up questions. The point being that it is fruitless to require a commitment from ECs that there are 21 Ecumenical Councils. If you believe that a particular EC dissents from a teaching of the Church that applies to him, then in imho it makes more sense to describe the teaching and ask.

 

[MonkMoses]

Forexample,someadvocatesofthereturntothefirstmillenniumconsensusasgrounds
forrestoredcommunion,suchasArchbishopZoghby,furtherrelativizethesecond*
millenniumdevelopmentsbyemphasizingthedistinctionbetweenthefirstSeven
EcumenicalCouncilsandlater“generalsynodsoftheWest,”pointingespeciallytoPope*
PaulVI’suseofthisterminologyinrelationtothefailedreunioncouncilofLyonsin
1274.ThisdistinctionisbasedonthecriterionforecumenicitylaiddownbytheSeventh*
Council*(NiceaII,**AD787)itself,requiringacceptanceofacouncilbythechurchesof*
bothEastandWestsothatneithercouldclaimecumenicityforitsownseparatesynods.*
Councilsthatlacksuchagreement,theseadvocateswouldargue,arenotecumenicaland*
shouldnotbeconsideredinfallible.4

4
**EliasZoghby,EcumenicalReflections(Fairfax,Va.:EasternChristianPublications,*1998),3335.**In

 

[twf]

It seems to me that full participation by the Byzantine Church is an odd requirement for determining the ecumenical status of a council when the pre-Great Schism Church apparently did not consider participation by the Oriental Churches a requirement.

 

[jimkhong]

I thought I would answer these questions together since they pose similar questions.

Many ECs do not define an “Ecumenical Council” the same way we do in the west. To those, a council is only “ecumenical” if it is accepted by all of the Eastern Churches, as is historically true of the first seven. As jimkhong pointed out, there is the additional reality that the decrees of many of the later councils simply do not apply to the east, as they are dealing with specifically Latin issues.

That isn’t to say that ECs are free to reject those decrees of later councils that do apply to them; and in my experience they generally do accept them. If you ask them how many ecumenical councils they accept though, don’t be surprised if the answer is seven. If you ask most RCs how many councils they accept, you will probably get a puzzled look and a lot of follow-up questions. The point being that it is fruitless to require a commitment from ECs that there are 21 Ecumenical Councils. If you believe that a particular EC dissents from a teaching of the Church that applies to him, then in imho it makes more sense to describe the teaching and ask.

Thanks, tdgesq, that is a more illuminating to one more interested in comprehending than arguing. So, let me see if I understand this correcty: Individual ECs will evaluate whether the decisions of a council apply to their own respective Church and accept only those that apply. This acceptance is independent of whether the individual EC consider that council to be ecumenical.

Sorry for this clumsy formulation but necessary for a Latin-trained mind to understand Greek concepts. If my understanding is correct, I have a few questions:

1 Do individual ECs maintain their respective lists of ecumenical councils? If so, do they differ?

2 Why 7 and not 8? Do Melkites consider Photius to be in schism? The other teachings of 4 Constantinopole seems perfectly in line with Melkite teachings, unless I understand them wrongly.

3 What criteria is used by ECs to determine the ecumenical nature of a council?

4 What then is the status of a council which deals with matters of the universal church but not considered ecumenical for whatever reason? I am thinking specifically of Vatican 2, which is obviously more than a local Latin patriarchal council and have teachings specific to ECs.

5 What happen to teachings of councils which took place before an EC’s reunion? For instance, Syro-Malankara reunited only in 1930: do they retrospectively adopt the relevant teachings of Vatican 1?

 

[Peter_J]

Hi jimkhong. I think certain wordings might put a bit of a spin on things. For example, there was an earlier post that said that the “teaching” of the Melkite Church is that there have been 7 ecumenical councils. That’s a fine statement except for putting “teaching” instead of “view” or “stance”.

But that aside, I would say Yes, different ECs absolutely do have differing ideas about how many ecumenical councils there have been – just as not every Latin Catholic believes that there have been 21.

Thanks, tdgesq, that is a more illuminating to one more interested in comprehending than arguing. So, let me see if I understand this correcty: Individual ECs will evaluate whether the decisions of a council apply to their own respective Church and accept only those that apply. This acceptance is independent of whether the individual EC consider that council to be ecumenical.

Sorry for this clumsy formulation but necessary for a Latin-trained mind to understand Greek concepts. If my understanding is correct, I have a few questions:

1 Do individual ECs maintain their respective lists of ecumenical councils? If so, do they differ?

2 Why 7 and not 8? Do Melkites consider Photius to be in schism? The other teachings of 4 Constantinopole seems perfectly in line with Melkite teachings, unless I understand them wrongly.

3 What criteria is used by ECs to determine the ecumenical nature of a council?

4 What then is the status of a council which deals with matters of the universal church but not considered ecumenical for whatever reason? I am thinking specifically of Vatican 2, which is obviously more than a local Latin patriarchal council and have teachings specific to ECs.

5 What happen to teachings of councils which took place before an EC’s reunion? For instance, Syro-Malankara reunited only in 1930: do they retrospectively adopt the relevant teachings of Vatican 1?

 

[jimkhong]

Hi jimkhong. I think certain wordings might put a bit of a spin on things. For example, there was an earlier post that said that the “teaching” of the Melkite Church is that there have been 7 ecumenical councils. That’s a fine statement except for putting “teaching” instead of “view” or “stance”.

But that aside, I would say Yes, different ECs absolutely do have differing ideas about how many ecumenical councils there have been – just as not every Latin Catholic believes that there have been 21.

Thanks, Peter. What then is the criteria for the Melkite Church to consider a council as ecumenical?

Here I am inquiring regarding the official Church view as understood by the Patriarch or the Synod. Individual Latin Catholics may have their own respective views (which I respect) but the official Latin Church list is 21, whether we like it or not.

 

[Peter_J]

So if I’m remembering this thread correctly, there’s an official Latin stance regarding how many ecumenical councils there have been, but not regarding how many ex cathedra statements there have been, right?

BTW, can anyone think of any prominent Catholics who maintain that there have been exactly 8 ecumenical councils (Vatican II being the eighth one)?

 

[jimkhong]

Peter, everything that you have said is infallibly right and I withdraw everything I have said.

Does anyone else know what the official Melkite view as understood by the Patriarch or the Synod on the number of ecumenical council is? And any of the other questions I have posted as well. I am really interested to know.

 

[Peter_J]

Peter, everything that you have said is infallibly right and I withdraw everything I have said.

Of all the things I might have anticipated you saying, I don’t think any of them are as strange as this ^^. Kinda makes you wonder why we’ve been bothering to have this conversation at all (well, assuming it hasn’t all been some kind of April Fools’ joke).

Does anyone else know what the official Melkite view as understood by the Patriarch or the Synod on the number of ecumenical council is? And any of the other questions I have posted as well. I am really interested to know.

Do you see participation on the forum as strictly a one-way street, so to speak?

 

[Zekariya]

This makes me think of the Oriental Orthodox and the Eastern Orthodox. The Eastern Orthodox Church recognizes seven Ecumenical Councils. The Oriental Orthodox Church only recognizes the first three Ecumenical Councils. The use of Icons was defended in the 7th Council. The Oriental Orthodox Church does not accept the 7th Council as ecumenical. Does this mean that the Oriental Orthodox Church rejects the use of Icons? The Oriental Orthodox Church agrees with the doctrine of Icons defended by the 7th Council, however, the she does not consider the 7th to be ecumenical.

The Melkite Catholic Church recognizes only seven Ecumenical Councils. Our Faith is the same Faith of Rome even though we do not recognize later Councils as being ecumenical.

I say that the number of Ecumenical Councils recognized does not matter as long as we share the same Faith. For example, as long as the Melkites accept the doctrine of papal infallibility (and the other papal powers), it should not matter that we don’t consider Vatican I ecumenical.

 

[malphono]

I say that the number of Ecumenical Councils recognized does not matter as long as we share the same Faith. For example, as long as the Melkites accept the doctrine of papal infallibility (and the other papal powers), it should not matter that we don’t consider Vatican I ecumenical.

I’m merely playing devil’s advocate here, but if one accepts the decrees (or “doctrines” if one prefers), how can one not consider the council “ecumenical”? IOW, under what authority were those things promulgated? They didn’t just appear out of thin air.