Melkites only accept first 7 Ecumenical Councils?

[MartyMcFly]

I was told by a Melkite Deacon that the Melkite Catholic Church ONLY accepts the first 7 ecumenical councils!

It seems to me that this is impossible since subsequent Ecumenical Councils have issued “de fide” statements for the WHOLE Church. When the Pope speaks “ex cathedra” he speaks for the WHOLE Church, not just the Latin Church.

Can someone please clarify this and back it up with authoritative documents?

 

[Formosus]

The councils after the first 7 dealt exclusively with Western theology and western theological formulations. Hardly concerning the entire church.

 

[Aramis]

The councils after the first 7 dealt exclusively with Western theology and western theological formulations. Hardly concerning the entire church.

With the exceptions of Trent, Vatican I, and Vatican II… all three of which had direct impacts on the Eastern Catholics. There are a few more that had such impacts.

 

[MartyMcFly]

What about Florence?

 

[Chaldean_Rite]

no, they accept all of them.

 

[Aramis]

no, they accept all of them.

They just tend not to call the 8th and later “Ecumenical”…

 

[mardukm]

I was told by a Melkite Deacon that the Melkite Catholic Church ONLY accepts the first 7 ecumenical councils!

It seems to me that this is impossible since subsequent Ecumenical Councils have issued “de fide” statements for the WHOLE Church. When the Pope speaks “ex cathedra” he speaks for the WHOLE Church, not just the Latin Church.

Can someone please clarify this and back it up with authoritative documents?

Personally, I think it is rather impossible to view some of the Councils considered by the Latins as “Ecumenical” AS Ecumenical, since they ONLY dealt with matters peculiar to the Latin Church (e.g., #'s 9, 10, 12, 18, IIRC).

Perhaps the key is not to insist on the status of a Council as “Ecumenical.” The OO do not accept all of the Seven Ecumenical Councils AS Ecumenical, but agree quite readily to their doctrinal decrees (sans some canons, obviously).

Blessings

 

[peregrinus_sg]

This is what’s stated on the Meklite Eparchy of Newton’s website:

View of the Post-Schism Councils: Must we Eastern Catholics consider the post-schism General Councils of the Roman Church Ecumenical like the Seven of the First Millennium?

Bishop John’s Answer: Patriarch Gregory II Youssef-Sayour occupied the Melkite throne of Antioch for thirty-three years (1864-1897). At Vatican I, the Patriarch gave an impassioned plea to the assembled bishops in defense of the prerogatives of the ancient patriarchs. He said: "The Eastern Church attributes the highest and most complete power to the Pope, but in such a way that the fullness of his power is in harmony with the rights of the other Patriarchal Sees. (Mansi 52,cols. 133-137). Patriarch Gregory finally signed the document Pastor aeternus but only after adding the phrase made famous at the earlier Council of Florence that expressed his reservations. He added: “salvis omnibus iuribus et privilegiis patriarcharum”. {saving all of the rights and privileges of the patriarchs}.

While the first seven ecumenical councils enjoy a place of prominence, especially in the East, both the Churches of the East and West have experienced local councils and synods throughout their rich histories. The early ecumenical councils met to resolve and articulate important Christological doctrines. The Melkite Church participated fully in Vatican I and Patriarch Gregory spoke clearly to his affirmation of the fullness of power enjoyed by the Petrine Office. The Patriarch was very concerned that the exercise of papal powers be “in harmony with the rights of the other Patriarchal Sees.” The second Vatican Council is seen to have completed the unfinished business of Vatican I with its special emphasis on ecclesiology, specifically on the nature of the Church.

Recent theological speculation has developed the concept of “communion of churches” with promising results for ecumenism and rapprochement with the Orthodox. It would be a simple rekindling of the old controversy of conciliarism to suggest that some councils are less ecumenical than others. With the promulgation of the Holy Father, the doctrinal content of the various councils is a part of the sacred magisterial teaching of the Church to which Melkites in full communion with the See of Rome give wholehearted assent (Emphasis added).

 

[jimmy]

They just tend not to call the 8th and later “Ecumenical”…

They aren’t simply playing a game of semantics. There is actually something to them only claiming 7 ecumenical councils. To say that there are only seven is to say that the others are not binding on the whole Church because they are not universal. They are not councils of the whole Church.

 

[jimmy]

Personally, I think it is rather impossible to view some of the Councils considered by the Latins as “Ecumenical” AS Ecumenical, since they ONLY dealt with matters peculiar to the Latin Church (e.g., #'s 9, 10, 12, 18, IIRC).

Perhaps the key is not to insist on the status of a Council as “Ecumenical.” The OO do not accept all of the Seven Ecumenical Councils AS Ecumenical, but agree quite readily to their doctrinal decrees (sans some canons, obviously).

Blessings

No matter what they profess, the OO are not going to say that Chalcedon is a universally binding council.

How can you say they agree with the decrees of all the first seven councils when they reject the definition of two natures? You might be able to say they essentially come down to the same theology but it is a mistake to say that they agree quite readily to their doctrinal decrees because they still reject Chalcedon. If that were not the case then the OO and the EO would have communion now.