The Ecumenical Council of Trent.....And Eastern/Oriental Theology

[Antonius_Lupus]

Dear brothers and sisters,

I wanted to ask you, my Eastern and Oriental Catholic brethren, about an issue that came up recently.

I am a Latin Catholic, but I have “Eastern sensitivities”, and it was due to the testimony of a former Orthodox, now Melkite Catholic, priest that kept me in the bosom of the One True Church founded upon the Rock of St. Peter.

Since my journey home to the Catholic Church of Jesus Christ, I have cherished the fact that only in the Catholic Church can one find *all *the extant expressions of Apostolic Christianity.

Yet, from time to time, I have felt the temptation to join the Orthodox schism (I have since I was in RCIA). One of the issues that fueled this temptation was the idea that the Catholic Church is, ultimately, just a Roman Church. Namely, I was worried that the Catholic Church’s official and ecumenical teaching was rooted in Latin theology…and I feared that this would show the Church to not truly be “katholikos.”

Recently I was struggling with an issue concerning the sacrament of Confession. My spiritual father/mentor, a Latin rite Deacon, showed me one of the declarations of the Ecumenical Council of Trent.

In that session, the Council used the terms “matter and form” when speaking of the Sacrament of Penance. It also uses terminology that is (in my understanding) Latin/scholastic in theology.

It mentions “mortal and venial” sins. “Transubstantiation.” “Matter and form” (regarding the sacraments).

My question is essentially this:

My understanding of an Ecumenical Council is that it is the highest exercise of the charism of infallibility in the Church. Basically I understand an Ecumenical Council as “the Holy Spirit speaking.”

Therefore, I find it a bit disturbing to see the Holy Spirit speaking in terms of Latin terminology.

Does this mean that Eastern and Oriental Catholics must see the Latin/scholastic terms as “better” than there own traditions since this was what was used in an Ecumenical Council?

Are Eastern and Oriental Catholics now bound towards or in the Latin terminological positions since they were used to define doctrine in an Ecumenical Council?

And if this is so, does this not damage the idea that I cherish so much…namely that one can be “Orthodox in communion with Rome” (in the sense that one is able to retain one’s own venerable Eastern heritage while being in communion with the Roman See)?

Any thoughts?

 

[dixibehr]

Here are my random, incoherent thoughts on your questions:

All Ecumenical Councils are to a certain extent products of their time. Most were called to deal with serious issues facing the Church.

Nicea 1, for example, was called to deal with the Arian issue. It chose the word “homoousios” as the defining term–though earlier, it had had a heretical use.

Trent was called to deal with issues raised by the Protestant reformation. Eastern Catholic Churches, to my knowledge, were not represented.

Under the circumstances, this council would speak in the theological and philosophical terms that were current at the time.

The DOCTRINE promulgated is what is true, which is their substance. The TERMINOLOGY is an accident (and I’m deliberately using the terms in a scholastic sense).

To give an example of terminological difference: Western Christians speak of “confecting” the Eucarist or other sacraments. In the Byzantine/Orthodox tradition, we say “accomplishing the mystery”.

Both phrases are seeking to express the same truth.

Alas, too many people say “The Church” (as in “Latin is the universal language of the Catholic Church”) when they actually only mean the ROMAN/LATIN Church. I take pains to point out to such people that they do Eastern Catholics a disservice when assuming that “Roman” is the default definition of “the Church.”

This is a holdover of the idea that the Roman rite was the pre-eminent one, and the more an Eastern rite resembled the Roman rite, the more “perfect” it was.

Various Papal pronouncements and especially Vatican II have corrected this error.

 

[Aramis]

Calling Trent Ecumenical is a misnomer; it was essentially a local council to deal with issues in the Roman Church Alone.

It’s few and hostile references to the “Uniate Churches” (Unia) are a product of their time, a period where the churches in union were not well respected and even less well treated.

It was also in an era when conformity was highly desired socially and civilly.

Pious XII starts the process of delatinization. Paul VI and the Vatican II council both declare the value of the East. John Paul II spoke of east and west as 2 lungs of the church; JP2’s writings imply both the Unia and the Orthodox to comprise the second lung.

Pope Benedict XVI has made some rather blunt comments about the Eastern Lung being the Eastern Orthodox, quite honestly, I think he’s being insensitive to the Eastern Catholics, especially those of the Armenian, Coptic, Chaldean and Syrian Rites…

The Eastern Catholic Churches are recovering from both oppression and latinization. If you feel a call to the Eastern forms, find your nearest eastern rite parishes, and experience them. In the US, it’s easy to find Byzantine Rite (Mostly Ukrainian, Ruthenian, Melkite, Romanian churches), and if one is in the right areas, to find Syrian Rite (Maronite and Syrian, and Syro-malankar Churches) and Chaldean Rite (Chaldean and Syro-Malabar Churches). It’s harder to find Armenian Church, Coptic Church, and Ethiopian Church parishes.

And, since Paul VI, it’s been permissable for Latin Catholics to “move east” within the Church, both in praxis and in canonical enrollment; this change is truly one of the great blessings of the Vatican II era.

 

[Antonius_Lupus]

Calling Trent Ecumenical is a misnomer; it was essentially a local council to deal with issues in the Roman Church Alone.

Quite honestly, I don’t see how you as a Catholic can say this.

It is clearly an Ecumenical Council and I am pretty sure all Catholics should see it as such…isn’t kind of what makes us Catholic?

Now I am confused…

Even Trent called itself Ecumenical and was promulgated as such from its very beginning!

 

[Right_Glory]

Quite honestly, I don’t see how you as a Catholic can say this.

It is clearly an Ecumenical Council and I am pretty sure all Catholics should see it as such…isn’t kind of what makes us Catholic?

Now I am confused…

Even Trent called itself Ecumenical and was promulgated as such from its very beginning!

Ask the Melkites how many ecumenical councils there have been

 

[Aramis]

Quite honestly, I don’t see how you as a Catholic can say this.

It is clearly an Ecumenical Council and I am pretty sure all Catholics should see it as such…isn’t kind of what makes us Catholic?

Now I am confused…

Even Trent called itself Ecumenical and was promulgated as such from its very beginning!

It was a Council of the Roman Church, and Its authority within the Roman Church is not in doubt. It’s status as ecumenical has been a matter of debate since the council, since few EC bishops even attended, it had little effect on the EC churches (other than to reiterate that no Roman should become Eastern), and dealt only with issues of the Roman Church.

The Roman use of the term Ecumenical is often pretentious, and at times, downright misleading as to the nature of the council convened.

No doubts V I and V II are ecumenical; both included the EC’s, and V II even included non-catholic commentators (who had voice but not vote)… Trent did neither.

 

[Antonius_Lupus]

It was a Council of the Roman Church, and Its authority within the Roman Church is not in doubt. It’s status as ecumenical has been a matter of debate since the council, since few EC bishops even attended, it had little effect on the EC churches (other than to reiterate that no Roman should become Eastern), and dealt only with issues of the Roman Church.

The Roman use of the term Ecumenical is often pretentious, and at times, downright misleading as to the nature of the council convened.

No doubts V I and V II are ecumenical; both included the EC’s, and V II even included non-catholic commentators (who had voice but not vote)… Trent did neither.

With all due respect I think you are totally wrong here. I really cannot see how one can be a Catholic in good conscience and not believe that there have been 21 ***Ecumenical ***Councils.

I am sure that this belief is central to the Catholic understanding of the history of the Church.

I cannot except this…it’s sounds heretical.

 

[Ghosty]

With all due respect I think you are totally wrong here. I really cannot see how one can be a Catholic in good conscience and not believe that there have been 21 ***Ecumenical ***Councils.

I am sure that this belief is central to the Catholic understanding of the history of the Church.

I cannot except this…it’s sounds heretical.

The number of Ecumenical Councils is actually not defined by the Catholic Church. There is no authoritative list of them, so it’s not at all unreasonable to consider Trent a local Council that made judgements that affect the whole Church (just like the Council of Orange which condemned Pelagianism).

This doesn’t mean that Trent can just be rejected as erroneous; it’s accepted as a legitimate expression of the Catholic Faith by Eastern Catholics. It’s not the validity and orthodoxy of the Council that’s in question, just its right to the term “Ecumenical”.

As to the OP, I wouldn’t stress over the fact that Latin language and theology predominated at Trent. Greek language and theology predominated at Constantinople I, and Antiochian theology predominated at Chalcedon (to the exception of Alexandrian, which is equally valid and orthodox, but uses terms differently). Every Council reflects the time and place that it occured, not to mention the specific issues it was called to address. Trent is a Western event, dealing with Western issues; it only makes sense that it uses Latin terminology, theology, and approach to address them.

Peace and God bless!

 

[fwon2638]

The number of Ecumenical Councils is actually not defined by the Catholic Church. There is no authoritative list of them, so it’s not at all unreasonable to consider Trent a local Council that made judgements that affect the whole Church (just like the Council of Orange which condemned Pelagianism).

Ghosty,

I know you and Mardukm have mentioned that before. It is still very hard for me to comprehend as a Latin Catholic. There are lots of Catholic literatures saying there are 21 “Ecumenical” Councils.

Francis

 

[Aramis]

Ghosty,

I know you and Mardukm have mentioned that before. It is still very hard for me to comprehend as a Latin Catholic. There are lots of Catholic literatures saying there are 21 “Ecumenical” Councils.

Francis

Lots of LATIN catholic materials.

 

[Ghosty]

Ghosty,

I know you and Mardukm have mentioned that before. It is still very hard for me to comprehend as a Latin Catholic. There are lots of Catholic literatures saying there are 21 “Ecumenical” Councils.

Francis

Yes, 21 is the popular number to mention, but it’s not based on any official count. It’s just the widely accepted number among Latin Catholics, based on the number of Councils that have been significant to the West. When viewed from the perspective of the whole Catholic Church, however, certain councils such as Trent aren’t nearly so significant, though they are still authoritative in their own way (Trent remains the definitive answer to Protestantism, it just doesn’t represent the East, nor does it address Eastern concerns).

And example of Eastern Councils that falls into a similar category would be the “Palamite Councils” of the 14th century. They settled a debate that was occuring in the East, not the West, and while entirely orthodox and definitive they can’t be said to represent the “whole Church” as Ecumenical Councils.

Peace and God bless!

 

[fwon2638]

Yes, 21 is the popular number to mention, but it’s not based on any official count. It’s just the widely accepted number among Latin Catholics, based on the number of Councils that have been significant to the West. When viewed from the perspective of the whole Catholic Church, however, certain councils such as Trent aren’t nearly so significant, though they are still authoritative in their own way (Trent remains the definitive answer to Protestantism, it just doesn’t represent the East, nor does it address Eastern concerns).

And example of Eastern Councils that falls into a similar category would be the “Palamite Councils” of the 14th century. They settled a debate that was occuring in the East, not the West, and while entirely orthodox and definitive they can’t be said to represent the “whole Church” as Ecumenical Councils.

Peace and God bless!

What do you mean by “whole Church”? Based on your view, I guess it is not possible to convey an ecumenical council until there is a reconciliation of all apostolic churches?

Francis

 

[Aramis]

What do you mean by “whole Church”? Based on your view, I guess it is not possible to convey an ecumenical council until there is a reconciliation of all apostolic churches?

Francis

Fundamentally, no, reunification isn’t essential for an Ecumenical Council, but that it needs to address one or more issues that directly affects both the East and the West, and involve the Bishops of both the East and the West, and be acclaimed by the Pope.

 

[dixibehr]

One thing to remember–the Latin church is NOT the whole, or even the standard, of the Catholic Church.

 

[Alethiaphile]

No council after the first millenium can rightly be called “ecumenical”, and no council which is not ecumenical can bind the universal Church. Joe

 

[Ghosty]

What do you mean by “whole Church”? Based on your view, I guess it is not possible to convey an ecumenical council until there is a reconciliation of all apostolic churches?

Francis

By whole Church I’m refering to the whole Catholic Church, which was not represented at the Council of Trent and neither were issues that related to the whole Church. Vatican I and Vatican II, on the otherhand, did have representation from the whole Church, and even the Orthodox were invited to both (they didn’t attend Vatican I, and were non-voting at Vatican II).

As for Alethiaphile’s claim that no Council after the first millenium being Ecumenical, such a view is utterly untenable. If we must have the Orthodox represented, then there has been no Ecumenical Council after the Third Ecumenical Council, when two Petrine Patriarchs and at least a third of the whole Catholic Church broke away. Either there have only been Three Ecumenical Councils, or there can be Ecumenical Councils without all Apostolic Churches represented; there is simply no in-between.

Peace and God bless!

 

[Alethiaphile]

As for Alethiaphile’s claim that no Council after the first millenium being Ecumenical, such a view is utterly untenable. If we must have the Orthodox represented, then there has been no Ecumenical Council after the Third Ecumenical Council, when two Petrine Patriarchs and at least a third of the whole Catholic Church broke away.

Are you saying the two “Petrine Patriarchs” (I assume you mean Antioch and Alexandria) did not return to Orthodoxy and did not participate at any of the Councils after the Third? I don’t think so. Joe

 

[Ghosty]

Are you saying the two “Petrine Patriarchs” (I assume you mean Antioch and Alexandria) did not return to Orthodoxy and did not participate at any of the Councils after the Third? I don’t think so. Joe

That’s exactly what I’m saying. The Coptic and Syriac Churches remain seperate from Eastern Orthodoxy, and have since the Fourth Council, which they rejected. The Byzantine Roman Empire appointed replacement Patriarchs of those Sees (exactly like the Latins did during the Crusades when they set up Patriarchs of Constantinople, Jerusalem, and Antioch), but the vast majority of Bishops and nearly all of the laity followed their original Patriarchs in rejecting Chalcedon. So yes, Alexandria and Antioch (the Syriac Antiochians, at least) remain seperate and have been for 1600 years; that’s just a fact of history, and it’s why we have a seperate group called the Oriental Orthodox.

So, if rejection of a Council by a Patriarch and his Synod is reason for a Council not being Ecumenical, then there have been no Ecumenical Councils since Ephesus, unless of course you recognize the validity of setting up minority, foreign Patriarchs based on secular power, in which case the second-millenium Councils are legitimate because the Latin Patriarchs of the East agreed to them.

Peace and God bless!

 

[mardukm]

Dear brother Antonius Lupus,

Yet, from time to time, I have felt the temptation to join the Orthodox schism (I have since I was in RCIA). One of the issues that fueled this temptation was the idea that the Catholic Church is, ultimately, just a Roman Church. Namely, I was worried that the Catholic Church’s official and ecumenical teaching was rooted in Latin theology…and I feared that this would show the Church to not truly be “katholikos.”

Recently I was struggling with an issue concerning the sacrament of Confession. My spiritual father/mentor, a Latin rite Deacon, showed me one of the declarations of the Ecumenical Council of Trent.

In that session, the Council used the terms “matter and form” when speaking of the Sacrament of Penance. It also uses terminology that is (in my understanding) Latin/scholastic in theology.

It mentions “mortal and venial” sins. “Transubstantiation.” “Matter and form” (regarding the sacraments).

My question is essentially this:

My understanding of an Ecumenical Council is that it is the highest exercise of the charism of infallibility in the Church. Basically I understand an Ecumenical Council as “the Holy Spirit speaking.”

Therefore, I find it a bit disturbing to see the Holy Spirit speaking in terms of Latin terminology.

Does this mean that Eastern and Oriental Catholics must see the Latin/scholastic terms as “better” than there own traditions since this was what was used in an Ecumenical Council?

Are Eastern and Oriental Catholics now bound towards or in the Latin terminological positions since they were used to define doctrine in an Ecumenical Council?

And if this is so, does this not damage the idea that I cherish so much…namely that one can be “Orthodox in communion with Rome” (in the sense that one is able to retain one’s own venerable Eastern heritage while being in communion with the Roman See)?

Any thoughts?

As brothers Ghosty and Aramis have already pointed out, the Council of Trent was called to address a WESTERN issue, and is thus, understandably, couched in Latin Catholic terminology.

On the level of dogma, can it be considered ecumenical? I, for one, believe it can. As you might know, the EO Council of Jerusalem, called to deal with the Protestant incursions into Eastern Orthodoxy is quite readily regarded by EO as its most “Latin” Council. The reason is easy to comprehend. Protestantism was a heresy couched in Latin theological terminology, and the only way to address it was to meet it on the same terms. So much of the Latin Catholic Church’s theological arguments had universal agreement, even from the EO. No Catholic or Orthodox (be they Oriental or Eastern) denies the universal dogmatic truths that proceeded from the Council of Trent, as far as battling the Protestant heresies are concerned.

However, ecclesiastically speaking (as well as on the level of discipline) can it be considered ecumenical? I don’t believe most Easterns and Orientals, including myself, can conscientiously agree to that claim.

You expressed disbelief that brother Aramis would not call the Council of Trent “Ecumenical” and commented, “isn’t that what makes us Catholic?” I, for one, believe that what makes us “Catholic” is the standard of DOGMATIC Truth, not whether or not a certain Council is called Ecumenical. Does EVERY Catholic - Latin, Eastern or Oriental - believe, or need to believe, in the dogmatic Truths proclaimed at Trent in order to be Catholic? Yes, indeed. Do we need to believe these dogmatic Truths according to specifically Latin terminology in order to be Catholic? We don’t need to, but it is most useful in the apologetic against Protestantism. Do we need to call the Council of Trent “Ecumenical” in order to be Catholic? Not at all.

This is, btw, the model proposed by the OO in its talks with the Catholic and Eastern Orthodox Churches, as regards the Councils beyond the first three.

Also, take special note of the requirements for Orthodox Christians who translate from Orthodoxy to Catholicism - I certainly am not aware of a requirement to profess the existence of 21 Ecumenical Councils. Perhaps my Eastern Catholic brethren can also verify - do any of your reunion documents require recognition of 21 Ecumenical Councils per se (I would distinguish between a statement like “profess the FAITH of the 21 Councils of the Catholic Church” from “profess that there are 21 ecumenical councils”? If such a recognition is not required upon joining the Catholic communion, your question “isn’t that what makes us Catholic?” would have to be answered “no.”

Maybe at some future point in time, when the reunion of Churches has been achieved by God’s grace, the Council of Trent can be regarded as truly Ecumenical.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[JohnVIII]

Either there have only been Three Ecumenical Councils, or there can be Ecumenical Councils without all Apostolic Churches represented; there is simply no in-between.

I think you may have convinced me that there was in fact only three Ecumenical Councils, not seven, nor even twenty one!