Ravenna Document: Ecumenical Councils 8-21

[XtusVictor]

Unlike diocesan and regional synods, an ecumenical council is not an “institution” whose frequency can be regulated by canons; it is rather an “event”, a kairos inspired by the Holy Spirit who guides the Church so as to engender within it the institutions which it needs and which respond to its nature. This harmony between the Church and the councils is so profound that, even after the break between East and West which rendered impossible the holding of ecumenical councils in the strict sense of the term, both Churches continued to hold councils whenever serious crises arose. These councils gathered together the bishops of local Churches in communion with the See of Rome or, although understood in a different way, with the See of Constantinople, respectively. In the Roman Catholic Church, some of these councils held in the West were regarded as ecumenical. This situation, which obliged both sides of Christendom to convoke councils proper to each of them, favoured dissentions which contributed to mutual estrangement. The means which will allow the re-establishment of ecumenical consensus must be sought out.

I suspect there is a wide-spread misreading of this passage based on cursory reading. The key words are in the strict sense. What does this expression mean in this context? Usually “strict sense” means in the literal sense. In other words if ecumenical means the whole of the pre schism church, then subsequent councils cannot be literally ecumenical. I suppose you could say that the Catholic Church cannot be called the Catholic Church after the schism because in the strict sense of the term. Of course this makes no difference for the Catholic Church’s present understanding of being the Catholic Church and being universally so. But for the sake of a joint communique signed by two parties in fundamental disagreement, you could still say, it is not catholic in the strict sense without giving anything up doctrinally.

So, in the strict sense (literal sense) the ecumenical council’s 8-21 were not ecumenical from the point of view of a joint document signed by disagreeing parties. So what? This does not makes ecumenical councils 8-21 any less ecumenical in the eyes of the Catholic Church or any less binding.

While the word “ecumenical” mean worldwide in the literal sense or strict sense, it’s canonical meaning is something different. A council being ecumenical means it is binding. Even some of the first 7 councils were not ecumenical in the strict sense as no Western bishops were present. But these councils lack of ecumenicity in the strict sense does not prevent their being ecumenical in the canonical sense.

Another example of strict sense interpretation is the phrase “ecumenical dialogue.” Absolutely none of the ecumenical dialogues of the the past 40 years have been ecumenical in the strict sense, as none of them have actually been world wide.

At least this is how I am reading it now. I am interested in the responses of others.

 

[Hesychios]

…So what? This does not makes ecumenical councils 8-21 any less ecumenical in the eyes of the Catholic Church or any less binding.

The Melkite Particular church in Communion with Rome does not agree with you, apparently.

While the word “ecumenical” mean worldwide in the literal sense or strict sense, it’s canonical meaning is something different.

It means imperial. Ecumenical Councils were intended for the entire Roman Empires’ Christians. Which is why they were called by emperors, and convened and chaired by Eastern bishops in eastern cities.

The Fathers always asked other churches outside of the Empire to participate, if they could, or sign on to the program so that they might not grow apart. This is why other Patriarchs and Metropolitans, like the bishop of Rome, were asked to approve of them for their own use.

At least this is how I am reading it now. I am interested in the responses of others.

Michael*

 

[XtusVictor]

ec·u·men·i·cal (ky-mn-kl) also ec·u·men·ic (-mnk)
adj.

1. Of worldwide scope or applicability; universal.

a. Of or relating to the worldwide Christian church.
b. Concerned with establishing or promoting unity among churches or religions.

The word does not mean imperial, but worldwide, in the strict sense.

That the Melkite’s disagree with Rome on the number of ecumenical councils is irrelevant.

There was one empire with two capitals through the 6th Century. Until that time, Rome was never outside the empire. After that time, Rome assumed the prerogatives of the Emperor including the ability to call Ecumenical Councils.

The dependence of the Church on an Emperor to call its most authoritative body is absurd. There is nothing apostolic or even ecclesiastical about the civil office responsible for 3 centuries of the torture and murder of Christians displayed for public entertainment.

 

[Hesychios]

ec·u·men·i·cal (ky-mn-kl) also ec·u·men·ic (-mnk)
adj.

1. Of worldwide scope or applicability; universal.

a. Of or relating to the worldwide Christian church.
b. Concerned with establishing or promoting unity among churches or religions.

The word does not mean imperial, but worldwide, in the strict sense.

That is the modern adaption of the term, not the original meaning from the time of the Seven Councils.

That the Melkite’s disagree with Rome on the number of ecumenical councils is irrelevant.

They would say that the fact you disagree with them is irrelevent.

There was one empire with two capitals through the 6th Century.

It was always the Eastern Emperor who called the Councils. The Western Empire was a separate and distinct political entity while it lasted, as or more different from the Eastern Empire as the Slovak Republic and the Czech Republic are from each other, the split was peacefully concluded in both cases. There were two lines of monarchs, there was a border.

The Western Empire collapsed, and generations later Justinian extended the Eastern Empire into the western Mediterraneran (including central Italy for a time). It was ruled by an exarch in colonial fashion. Rome was dominated politically and several Popes were named by the emperors at the time.

Until that time, Rome was never outside the empire. After that time, Rome assumed the prerogatives of the Emperor including the ability to call Ecumenical Councils.

This is pretty much a myth, historical revisionism.

No bishop of Rome called any of the important Seven Councils, upon which the fundamental Christian Faith is primarily based. It was not necessary.

The power of an Ecumanical Council derives from the Holy Spirit working through the assembled bishops. Regardless of who calls them together the authority of the Council comes of the assembled fathers who can speak as one voice for the church, under the Holy Spirit. The religious authority does not come from the one who calls the council, but from the assembled participants, and it’s adoptiion by the local churches.

Subsequent General Councils of the West were called in emulation of the originals. They are a new tradition justified on another basis, and they are typically preoccupied by parochial Latin concerns. They are properly referred to as Pseudo-Councils.

The dependence of the Church on an Emperor to call its most authoritative body is absurd.

I agree, it seems absurd to us in the twenty first century, but that is what happened. You cannot change that by inventing theories or revising history.

The Emperor was the leading citizen of the empire, and he had the deep pockets. He was also able (and personally expected) to legally enforce the findings of a Council within the empire. That is just what he did.

Some councils were called over the objections of leading prelates of the church, but they happened anyway and the bishops asserted their common role of speaking for the church. This is in perfect keeping with the early understanding of church ecclesiology, which has pretty much been lost in the west.

 

[XtusVictor]

I dont think it is appropriate for an Orthodox to make reference to the Melkites. If they want to speak, they can for themselves.

This is a thread about the Ravenna Document, which is a dialogue between Rome and the Orthodox (when they show up). Nobody can claim that Rome is irrelevant to this dialogue. Your insinuation of such is rude and inappropriate. You ought to apologize.

If you persist to imply the Roman position is irrelevant, this could be an issue.

Please do us a favor and address the arguments of the original post.

Even if the ancient meaning of the word ecumenical was “imperial,” this would have no impact on the original argument as that would be a strict sense of the term. The canonical sense of the term is unchanged by the strict sense of the term within this document. There is no reason to assume that Rome is discarding the later ecumenical councils because they are not ecumenical in the strict sense of the term. They are ecumenical in the canonical sense of the term.

 

[sterryfamily]

Forgive me for being overly simple, but THE CHURCH is the Church that is built by and headed by Jesus Christ.

Any who leave that Church are not a part of it and are outside any theoretic application of the term ecumenical as it applies to Church coucils.

 

[Hesychios]

I dont think it is appropriate for an Orthodox to make reference to the Melkites. If they want to speak, they can for themselves.

It is a Sui Iuris church of the Catholic communion under the Pope. Entirely relevent, especially since they are being held up before us all as a model for future reconciliation between Orthodox and the bishop of Rome. I am supposed to ignore the facts because you don’t like that?

I don’t think so.

This is a thread about the Ravenna Document, which is a dialogue between Rome and the Orthodox (when they show up). Nobody can claim that Rome is irrelevant to this dialogue. Your insinuation of such is rude and inappropriate. You ought to apologize.

I did not state that Rome is irrelevent. Don’t put words into my mouth (or keyboard )

You stated that the Melkites are irrelevent, an Autonomous Particular Ritual Church Sui Iuris, of the communion of Rome. Equal in every respect in honor, dignity and legitimacy to the Latin or any other.

You, my Christian friend, owe your coreligionists an apology.

If you persist to imply the Roman position is irrelevant, this could be an issue.

But I did not. Why do you attack me?

Please do us a favor and address the arguments of the original post.

I did, and you don’t like it. Why in the world did you ask if you simply want to shut up opposing views?

Even if the ancient meaning of the word ecumenical was “imperial,” this would have no impact on the original argument …

I would like to point out for you and those reading here that your position is ahistorical.

Michael

 

[Hesychios]

Forgive me for being overly simple, but THE CHURCH is the Church that is built by and headed by Jesus Christ.

Any who leave that Church are not a part of it and are outside any theoretic application of the term ecumenical as it applies to Church coucils.

I agree. Thanks for bringing that up.

It is truly unfortunate that by a Bull in 1054AD, the Roman church formally left the Holy Orthodox Communion of churches. As such, the western church is no longer seen as part of the church proper. By this act, a terrible schism ensued and we are all the worse off for it. Yet, all can be made well.

Let us pray for unity in Christ.

Michael

 

[XtusVictor]

The Melkite Church is as a sui juris entity has equal dignity but not equal jurisdiction with Rome. Rome has never approved the Melkite position on doctrinal matters. According to Eastern Canon Law, such approbation by Rome is required for acts of Patriarchs or Synods to have effect. Lacking such approval, the Melkite position is without force and irrelevant to East West discussion.

As for the meaning of the word ecumenical, it’s specific meaning in this context cannot mean Imperial as everyone agrees that these are ecumenical talks. And there is no credibility to the idea that these are imperial talks. Furthermore, what made an ancient council ecumenical was not that they were imperial but that they were approved as binding by all the churches–that is, that they were world wide. If a council were called by the Eastern Emperor but not approved by Rome, it could not be considered ecumenical. So Rome’s approval was more essential to ecumenicity than the role of the Emperor.

The Melkite position is illogical and irrational. It is a political position which cannot hold up under even a moment’s intellectual scrutiny. The absolute claims of the councils of the Catholic Church cannot be abandoned or regarded as regional. That would be a case of relativism. In the long term the various rites of the church cannot have different truths. In the post modern age nor in any other age, neither the Orthodox nor the Catholic Church can accept a communion of mutually exclusive claims. What is proposed by the Melkites is neither Catholicism nor Orthodoxy but Anglicanism. And we are all witnesses to the disastrous consequences of the English approach to religion.

 

[XtusVictor]

I agree. Thanks for bringing that up.

It is truly unfortunate that by a Bull in 1054AD, the Roman church formally left the Holy Orthodox Communion of churches. As such, the western church is no longer seen as part of the church proper. By this act, a terrible schism ensued and we are all the worse off for it. Yet, all can be made well.

Let us pray for unity in Christ.

Michael

This is a silly game the Orthodox play. The Bull of 1054 excommunicates the Eastern Churches from the principle of unity and truth found only in that single see founded on Peter the Rock. Roman primacy is scriptural, traditional and verifiable.

The Eastern Church are schismatic cut off.

 

[XtusVictor]

“[After quoting Matthew 16:18f; John 21:15ff]…On him [Peter] He builds the Church, and to him He gives the command to feed the sheep; and although He assigned a like power to all the Apostles, yet he founded a single Chair, and He established by His own authority a source and an intrinsic reason for that unity. Indeed, the others were that also which Peter was; but a primacy is given to Peter, whereby it is made clear that there is but one Church and one Chair. So too, all are shepherds, and the flock is shown to be one, fed by all the Apostles in single-minded accord. If someone does not hold fast to this unity of Peter, can he imagine that he still holds the faith? If he desert the chair of Peter upon whom the Church was built, can he still be confident that he is in the Church?” (St. Cyprian, The Unity of the Catholic Church [first edition] 4, c. AD 251)

According to such Patristic witnesses if is the Orthodox who are the first Protestants–and in the year 251 at that.

 

[Ridgerunner]

It really doesn’t make sense to speak of the “Eastern” emperors prior to 751 A.D. There was only one emperor in the remnant of the Roman Empire, and his seat was in Constantinople. There were not two churches then, only one. Sometimes the Church was dominated by the emperors, sometimes not.

The emperors abandoned Rome under pressure of Germanic invasions, and being more interested in wars with Persia, and made Ravenna the seat of their power in Italy. The Lombards invaded Italy and took most of it, including Ravenna. The Pope asked Venice to disestablish the Lombards from Ravenna, which Venice did. But it was retaken by the Lomards in 751. The Pope petitioned the emperor for help against the Lombards, but none was given. From that time on, the Popes looked to the Germanic peoples, who ruled most of Italy and the remainder of the West anyway, for protection of the Church and the City of Rome, culminating with the crowning of Charlemagne as Emperor of the Romans. By then, the “Roman” capital in Constantinople, was Greek. Whether one considered Greeks or the people of Rome as “the Romans”, Charlemagne would have been the emperor, in fact, of the people of Rome and as much of the West as was unified, whether crowned or not. The Greeks ruled the East; the Germans ruled the West, and “the Romans” ruled nothing. From that point on, the East and the West were divorced politically, along a boundary that still largely divides Catholic Europe from Orthodox Europe to this day. That political alienation was very likely the chief cause of the increasing alienation between the Eastern and Western parts of the Church.Ethnic changes also made a difference. From a relatively unified Roman empire stretching from the Euphrates to the Atlantic, with both the West and Constantinople being largely populated by Romans or Romanized Italians, Greeks and Celts, the East, including the City of Constantinople, became largely Asian and Slav with an ethnic Greek ruling class, and the West became largely Germanic or Germanicized in population, with an almost exclusively Germanic ruling class. Rome became little more than a small Italian town, largely governed by the Pope. From a relatively unified “people”, the two segments changed totally, and no longer had much of anything in common but a memory of the “worldwide” empire that had once been. The Greeks viewed the Germans as crude and violent barbarians. The Germans viewed the Greeks as weak, but crafty merchants. There was some truth as well as unfairness to both views.

In 1043, the Patriarch of Constantinople, Michael Cerularius approved and circulated a treatise which criticized the Church in the West for enforcing clerical celibacy, the use of unleavened bread in the Eucharist and including the filioque in the Nicene Creed. He then closed all the Latin churches in Constantinople and excommunicated all the clergy who continued using the Latin liturgy. The pope sent delegates to Constantinople to patch things up. Cerularius denied that they had authority to resolve the issues. The Pope died. In the absence of a new Pope, the delegates placed a bull excommunicating Cerularius on the altar of Hagia Sophia, without having Papal authority to do it; there being no new Pope at the time. Cerularius convened a council of eastern bishops and condemned the bull and all who had in any manner helped the Latin delegates or prayed for them. That, in 1054, is generally considered the moment when the schism was official. Various condemnations back and forth followed, as well as periodic attempts at reunion.

It is not unreasonable to believe that ethnic and political changes had more to do with the schism than real religious differences.

 

[sterryfamily]

I agree. Thanks for bringing that up.

It is truly unfortunate that by a Bull in 1054AD, the Roman church formally left the Holy Orthodox Communion of churches. As such, the western church is no longer seen as part of the church proper. By this act, a terrible schism ensued and we are all the worse off for it. Yet, all can be made well.

Let us pray for unity in Christ.

Michael

Look, we’re not stupid, here. We know what the eastern fathers had to say about papal authority in the first millenium versus what the new guys say now. They don’t match up - not even close.

We know what the east says about development of doctrine and how it applies to the filioque, etc. Yet they had no problem with development as it applied to determining the creed in the first place.

If you want to posit an argument, go ahead. But leave the sarcasm at home, please.

 

[Mannyfit75]

It really doesn’t make sense to speak of the “Eastern” emperors prior to 751 A.D. There was only one emperor in the remnant of the Roman Empire, and his seat was in Constantinople. There were not two churches then, only one. Sometimes the Church was dominated by the emperors, sometimes not.

The emperors abandoned Rome under pressure of Germanic invasions, and being more interested in wars with Persia, and made Ravenna the seat of their power in Italy. The Lombards invaded Italy and took most of it, including Ravenna. The Pope asked Venice to disestablish the Lombards from Ravenna, which Venice did. But it was retaken by the Lomards in 751. The Pope petitioned the emperor for help against the Lombards, but none was given. From that time on, the Popes looked to the Germanic peoples, who ruled most of Italy and the remainder of the West anyway, for protection of the Church and the City of Rome, culminating with the crowning of Charlemagne as Emperor of the Romans. By then, the “Roman” capital in Constantinople, was Greek. Whether one considered Greeks or the people of Rome as “the Romans”, Charlemagne would have been the emperor, in fact, of the people of Rome and as much of the West as was unified, whether crowned or not. The Greeks ruled the East; the Germans ruled the West, and “the Romans” ruled nothing. From that point on, the East and the West were divorced politically, along a boundary that still largely divides Catholic Europe from Orthodox Europe to this day. That political alienation was very likely the chief cause of the increasing alienation between the Eastern and Western parts of the Church.Ethnic changes also made a difference. From a relatively unified Roman empire stretching from the Euphrates to the Atlantic, with both the West and Constantinople being largely populated by Romans or Romanized Italians, Greeks and Celts, the East, including the City of Constantinople, became largely Asian and Slav with an ethnic Greek ruling class, and the West became largely Germanic or Germanicized in population, with an almost exclusively Germanic ruling class. Rome became little more than a small Italian town, largely governed by the Pope. From a relatively unified “people”, the two segments changed totally, and no longer had much of anything in common but a memory of the “worldwide” empire that had once been. The Greeks viewed the Germans as crude and violent barbarians. The Germans viewed the Greeks as weak, but crafty merchants. There was some truth as well as unfairness to both views.

In 1043, the Patriarch of Constantinople, Michael Cerularius approved and circulated a treatise which criticized the Church in the West for enforcing clerical celibacy, the use of unleavened bread in the Eucharist and including the filioque in the Nicene Creed. He then closed all the Latin churches in Constantinople and excommunicated all the clergy who continued using the Latin liturgy. The pope sent delegates to Constantinople to patch things up. Cerularius denied that they had authority to resolve the issues. The Pope died. In the absence of a new Pope, the delegates placed a bull excommunicating Cerularius on the altar of Hagia Sophia, without having Papal authority to do it; there being no new Pope at the time. Cerularius convened a council of eastern bishops and condemned the bull and all who had in any manner helped the Latin delegates or prayed for them. That, in 1054, is generally considered the moment when the schism was official. Various condemnations back and forth followed, as well as periodic attempts at reunion.

It is not unreasonable to believe that ethnic and political changes had more to do with the schism than real religious differences.

First of all the execommunication between the Patriarch of Constantinople was between individuals not churches par say. According to Pope Paul VI and Patriarch of Constantinople, the execommunication of 1054 is null and void…

 

[Hesychios]

Look, we’re not stupid, here.

No one said that you are stupid.

No one will accuse you of being stupid, just because you are incorrect.

 

[Hesychios]

…if is the Orthodox who are the first Protestants–and in the year 251 at that.

So then, I suppose by this that it is your opinion that shortly after Christ, the church ran off the rails?

Michael

 

[Mannyfit75]

So then, I suppose by this that it is your opinion that shortly after Christ, the church ran off the rails?

Michael

He has his information incorrect. Protestant didn’t exist in those days.

 

[Hesychios]

The Eastern Church are schismatic cut off.

I would say, in all charity, that we are all schismatics. There is no place for triumphalism.

I will call it in public for all the seekers and lurkers to read and assess this for themselves. Independent scholarship can demonstrate to anyone that the Roman story circa 19th century as retold by New Advent and you is spun out revisionism.

It is too bad, but it seems your mind has closed on this subject.

Pax et Bonum, anyway*
Michael*

 

[Catherine_Grant]

While the topic of interpreting the Ravenna document is appropriate to this forum, the lack of charity displayed herein is not.

This thread is now closed. Thank you to all who participated.