Melkites and their beliefs about Rome

[Zekariya]

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.

They were the universal teachings of the Church. There have been authoritative non-ecumenical councils in the East and West in the past. For example, the Byzantine Churches had the Hesychast Councils which were authoritative despite not being considered ecumenical.

 

[malphono]

They were the universal teachings of the Church. There have been authoritative non-ecumenical councils in the East and West in the past. For example, the Byzantine Churches had the Hesychast Councils which were authoritative despite not being considered ecumenical.

Yes, but weren’t those intra-Byzantine?

 

[Peter_J]

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.

I’m not sure if that really needs to be explained … Does anyone actually think that every local council (or, for that matter, every papal statement that isn’t ex cathedra) must be wrong? I’ve never really tried, but I imagine I could find an example of a council that is clearly not ecumenical, but that I would nevertheless agree with entirely.

 

[Peter_J]

I say that the number of Ecumenical Councils recognized does not matter as long as we share the same Faith.

Yes and no. If you mean does not matter much, then I agree. If you mean literally “does not matter” then I think I might have to object (and I’m pretty sure the Orthodox would too) since that leads to an overemphasis on the papacy.

 

[malphono]

I’m not sure if that really needs to be explained … Does anyone actually think that every local council (or, for that matter, every papal statement that isn’t ex cathedra) must be wrong? I’ve never really tried, but I imagine I could find an example of a council that is clearly not ecumenical, but that I would nevertheless agree with entirely.

I’m not going to address the parenthetical directly, but the key is, I think, in the highlighted part, isn’t it? IOW, it’s not a matter of whether a council is “wrong” but upon whom is it binding?

 

[Zekariya]

Yes and no. If you mean does not matter much, then I agree. If you mean literally “does not matter” then I think I might have to object (and I’m pretty sure the Orthodox would too) since that leads to an overemphasis on the papacy.

The Coptic Church accepts the use of Icons but does not recognize the 7th Ecumenical Council (their situation does not emphasize the Roman pope at all). It is in the same sense that I made that pervious statement.

 

[Peter_J]

I’m not going to address the parenthetical directly, but the key is, I think, in the highlighted part, isn’t it? IOW, it’s not a matter of whether a council is “wrong” but upon whom is it binding?

I think Zekaria’s example, just above, works well here.

Anyhow, I think it’s worth noting that even the Eastern Orthodox disagree among themselves about how many ecumenical councils there have been.

 

[malphono]

I think Zekaria’s example, just above, works well here.

Anyhow, I think it’s worth noting that even the Eastern Orthodox disagree among themselves about how many ecumenical councils there have been.

Neither comes close to where I was going, but I guess my nuance is lost on the world. Ah well …

 

[dzheremi]

The Coptic Church accepts the use of Icons but does not recognize the 7th Ecumenical Council (their situation does not emphasize the Roman pope at all). It is in the same sense that I made that pervious statement.

What do we have to do with anything concerning the Melkites? You do your own dirty work.

 

[Zekariya]

What do we have to do with anything concerning the Melkites? You do your own dirty work.

You have nothing to do with the Melkites. I was merely giving an example of being in doctrinal agreement with a council that one does not recognize as being ecumenical.

I do not understand what you mean by “dirty work”. The argument from the EOs usually goes that if the OOs accept the use of Icons, why can’t they accept the 7th Council. The OOs reply that they never had the need to have a council to fight Iconoclasm because it was never an issue for them.

How is this dirty? I saw it play out often on an Orthodox forum and it always had the same result. Since I was asked about giving to much power to the Roman pope, I would naturally give an example like this since it does not include him.

 

[Peter_J]

You have nothing to do with the Melkites. I was merely giving an example of being in doctrinal agreement with a council that one does not recognize as being ecumenical.

I do not understand what you mean by “dirty work”.

I have a hunch that you’re taking his post a little too seriously.

 

[Zekariya]

I have a hunch that you’re taking his post a little too seriously.

Oh, that is a relief. I thought that I had posted something greatly offensive. Thanks!

 

[tdgesq]

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.

At the risk of being corrected by my EC brothers and sisters, I will give you my perspective. It don’t think it’s a matter of individual personal choice on the part of ECs. They listen to the teachings of their bishops and follow their traditions as handed down to them. In that way, they really aren’t any different than the RCC. What particular canon from which council (and whether it is “ecumenical” or not) isn’t what matters. It’s what their Churches teach them as truth that matters.

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:

Understood. Other than the personal choice thing, I think you are basically correct.

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

They differ. I know some Melkites who accept Vatican I & II as ecumenical as well. Other ECs accept eight. I’ve seen some accept the council of Florence.

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.

Most I’ve seen deny that Photius was ultimately deemed to be schismatic. There are several Catholic historians who believe Photius was eventually reconciled with the RCC. As for Constantinople IV, it depends on which one you are referencing (869) or (879).

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

The majority I’ve seen hold that only those councils of the undivided Church are ecumenical, which historically is viewed as the first seven. But again, an official “list” of councils and those that are ecumenical is simply not an emphasis you will see among most ECs. They hold to their traditions and the teaching of their bishops. We Latins like lists. Even so, I’ve never heard a homily that stated there are 21 ecumenical councils. Our Church teaches us truth no matter its source too.

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.

I think you mean may an ECC reject a teaching from - say - Vatican I that clearly applies to the Universal Church as a whole. The answer to that is “no.” Whether that council makes the ecumenical list or not isn’t what’s important them.

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?

I don’t know enough about them to comment directly. What I can state is that the Syro-Malankara Catholic Church is deemed by the RCC to be in communion, and that is enough for me.

 

[Peter_J]

A good post, but …

Most I’ve seen deny that Photius was ultimately deemed to be schismatic. There are several Catholic historians who believe Photius was eventually reconciled with the RCC.

… I’m not sure why you say “believe”. It’s a historical fact that Patriarch Photius and Pope John were reconciled in 879.

 

[jimkhong]

Thanks, tdgesq, for a comprehensive reply. My abbrevation EC referred to Eastern Churches and not individual Eastern Christians.

It seems to me that the Eastern Catholics/Orthodox accept the truth taught wherever it is found and the Ecumenical council is only the package it comes in. Again, I guess it illustrates the trust they have in the actions of the Holy Spirit.

I agree with you that Latins like lists (I do). Perhaps more than that, Latins tend to see the process (eg., ex cathedra formulation, the very very detailed process of papal elections, list of dogmas from Rome) as defining the truth that needs to be accepted. It is likely to be an over-generalisation of course as it is not like Latins do not seek being guided by the Holy Spirit. But Eastern and Western thoughts occupy different parts of the spectrum - and we need both to have the fullest understanding of the truth.

In some ways, it parallels the two branches of philosophical thought in Asia: Indian and Chinese. Indians are happy to accept truth from whatever source as long as it is apparent: that is why Hindus are happy to read the Quran and pray the rosary. To the Chinese, maintaining order is of the highest priority and it is the status of the person making the statement that makes the statement authoritative, not so much the content itself. A difference that we Asians need to keep in mind when if and when we get our own Rite or Rites.

Thanks, everyone, this thread has definitely helped me understand the Eastern mind better.

 

[jimkhong]

It’s a historical fact that Patriarch Photius and Pope John were reconciled in 879.

Just out of curiosity, not that I think it makes a difference: Do Melkites, or any other Eastern Catholics, have the filioque in the Creed?

 

[jimkhong]

A good post, but …

… I’m not sure why you say “believe”. It’s a historical fact that Patriarch Photius and Pope John were reconciled in 879.

Btw, didn’t the Encyclical of the Eastern Patriarchs in 1848 list 8 Ecumenical Councils on the basis that Photius was reinstated at the 8th council? If Melkites accept the reconciliation at 879, so why only 7 councils and not 8?

Just curious.

 

[tdgesq]

A good post, but …

… I’m not sure why you say “believe”. It’s a historical fact that Patriarch Photius and Pope John were reconciled in 879.

Because some Catholic historians claim there was a second Photian schism.

 

[Peter_J]

Btw, didn’t the Encyclical of the Eastern Patriarchs in 1848 list 8 Ecumenical Councils on the basis that Photius was reinstated at the 8th council? If Melkites accept the reconciliation at 879, so why only 7 councils and not 8?

Just curious.

Good question, I’m not entirely sure.

Just out of curiosity, not that I think it makes a difference: Do Melkites, or any other Eastern Catholics, have the filioque in the Creed?

Sadly yes, some ECs do.

 

[collin_nunis]

No, Melkites do not have the Filioque in our Liturgical books.