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

[antgaria]

Dear all,

I am not going to be able to provide much (name removed by moderator)ut to this debate. I agree with all the doctrinal teachings of the Ecumenical councils, whether their number are 21, 7, or 3. But I want to complicate stuff just a bit, for a purpose.

In the case of Trent, the language may be Latin, but I am in agreement with its teaching. To look at it in another way, I agree with the teachings of Ephesus, even though the language and expression may be at Western {Alexandria}, compared to my Eastern point of view. So for those who are looking at only 3 as the “Ecumenical” number, may I propose 2? After all, there was a whole Church outside of Rome {the Roman Empire} which did not participate or agree with it.

Of course, I believe in the faith of Ephesus. I think this is what brother Mardukm was talking about. Given the language/viewpoint framework of Ephesus, I can understand its teaching to be completely in line with the Apostolic Faith, and that it does not deny the humanity of Christ. That is why Chalcedon was able to affirm Christ as true man and true God.

Anyways, just a few cents…

 

[mardukm]

Dear brother Anthony,

I am not going to be able to provide much (name removed by moderator)ut to this debate. I agree with all the doctrinal teachings of the Ecumenical councils, whether their number are 21, 7, or 3. But I want to complicate stuff just a bit, for a purpose.

In the case of Trent, the language may be Latin, but I am in agreement with its teaching. To look at it in another way, I agree with the teachings of Ephesus, even though the language and expression may be at Western {Alexandria}, compared to my Eastern point of view. So for those who are looking at only 3 as the “Ecumenical” number, may I propose 2? After all, there was a whole Church outside of Rome {the Roman Empire} which did not participate or agree with it.

Of course, I believe in the faith of Ephesus. I think this is what brother Mardukm was talking about. Given the language/viewpoint framework of Ephesus, I can understand its teaching to be completely in line with the Apostolic Faith, and that it does not deny the humanity of Christ. That is why Chalcedon was able to affirm Christ as true man and true God.

Anyways, just a few cents…

I am ALWAYS blessed to see your handle. You have given a valuable few cents worth a dollar. Your arguments for 2 as a Chaldean Catholic reinforces the fact that we, as Catholics are not determined by the NUMBER of Councils we admit, but rather by the FAITH we believe.

Abundant blessings,
Marduk

 

[mardukm]

Dear brother LumenGent,

I am stating that the Church has defined that there have been 21 Ecumenical Councils.

Brother Ghosty has called you on this already, and you have still not given any documentary evidence that this number of Councils has been DEFINED. You understand, I hope, that “defined” is an ecclesiastical term. It means that somewhere out there, the Church has infallibly made this determination and imposed its acceptance on the faithful on pain of some sort of censure. I have asked you to provide the document that makes this definition (or at least reference it).

If the CCC states that there are 21 Ecumenical Councils then that is an authoritative statement.

Where? What page? And so what? If I read in the newspaper that so and so is 21 years old, am I bound to believe it on pain of ecclesiastical censure, excommunication, or loss of salvation?

I should ask you a question: Is it an infallible statement that there have been 255 Popes in the history of the Church? If so why, if not why not?

No. By definition, the Grace of infallibility is required only on a question of Faith or morals, not historical facts.

Trust me a Pope can’t be wrong in declaring a Council Ecumenical.

I disagree. The declaration of a Council as ecumenical is a canonical prerogative of the Pope, not an ex cathedra statement. It might be authoritative, sure, but he can change his mind on it later, as he did with the matter of the Vulgate. And there are indications that the current or past Holy Father is not as dogmatic on the matter of the number of Councils as some Catholics (surely a case of trying to be more Catholic than the Holy Father ).

Patriarchal Synods don’t have the authority to declare which Council’s are Ecumenical and which are not,

True. But their agreement is important nevertheless for the sake of the peace of the Church.

neither do the orthodox, which is why they disregard anything past the first 7 and others the first 3.

That is not true at all. The Oriental Orthodox easily recognize much of what is orthodox in the rest of the Seven. The ACOE likewise. And, as noted, even the EO agreed to much of the theological arguments from Trent against the Protestants.

If you recognise Papal Primacy then you will accept this, if you don’t then you are an orthodox.

As you will note in my bio, I am indeed an Orthodox in communion with Rome. When I came into Catholic communion, I assure you I was not required to admit that there are 21 Ecumenical Councils in the Catholic Church. I don’t say this as if I am insulted by the insinuation, but seriously - who do you think you are to throw doubt on my status as a Catholic because I don’t accept the same number of Councils as you do? What authority do you have to lay this burdern on Eastern and Oriental Catholics when the Popes themselves have not laid that burden upon us?

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[Antonius_Lupus]

What of the various rites which were replaced by the Latin?
Celtic, African, Gallican, Sarum, Durham?

John

I said “extant.”

 

[Aramis]

I said “extant.”

The Sarum Rite is still extant, but only amonst the Anglican Church… as an EF.

 

[Antonius_Lupus]

Dear brother Antonius Lupus,

No one here is denying your understanding of the Council of Trent as an Ecumenical Council. What we are saying is that admission of the exact number of Councils is not a prerequisite to BE Catholic. In other words, can you accept that such a belief should be merely theologoumenon? If we accept the dogmatic Faith of the Council (not necessarily its theological language), must we (Easterns and Orientals) be forced to call it Ecumenical in order to be considered Catholic?

As someone else had written, would you force us to accept the Lateran Councils as “Ecumenical” even though they were CLEARLY and MERELY called to address ecclesiastical and discplinary matters EXCLUSIVE to the Western Church?

I proposed this before - do you think a “Catholic” is defined by the NUMBER of Ecumenical Councils he/she admits to, or is a Catholic defined by the dogmatic Faith he/she holds?

I am concerned for your peace, so I hope you will ponder these questions in your heart and mind - which I hope will lead you to the peace and understanding you are seeking.

Blessings,
Marduk

Okay…so basically the idea here is that while a Catholic may not be bound to deem a certain council as “ecumenical” per se, a Catholic is nevertheless bound by the doctrinal and moral determinations made at these councils which the West has traditionally deemed as Ecumenical Councils?

So basically moral and doctrinal elements of the 21 Councils recognized as Ecumenical by the Pope of Rome are held to in order to be Catholic, but it is not necessary to HAVE to call these councils Ecumenical in the Eastern Catholic understanding of that term in order to BE Catholic?

Am I understanding your point better?

 

[Antonius_Lupus]

The Sarum Rite is still extant, but only amonst the Anglican Church… as an EF.

Yes, but Anglicans lack Apostolic succession so the Sarum liturgy in their “church” is mostly just ritual memory, no?

 

[Antonius_Lupus]

Dear brother LumenGent,

Brother Ghosty has called you on this already, and you have still not given any documentary evidence that this number of Councils has been DEFINED. You understand, I hope, that “defined” is an ecclesiastical term. It means that somewhere out there, the Church has infallibly made this determination and imposed its acceptance on the faithful on pain of some sort of censure. I have asked you to provide the document that makes this definition (or at least reference it).

Where? What page? And so what? If I read in the newspaper that so and so is 21 years old, am I bound to believe it on pain of ecclesiastical censure, excommunication, or loss of salvation?

No. By definition, the Grace of infallibility is required only on a question of Faith or morals, not historical facts.

I disagree. The declaration of a Council as ecumenical is a canonical prerogative of the Pope, not an ex cathedra statement. It might be authoritative, sure, but he can change his mind on it later, as he did with the matter of the Vulgate. And there are indications that the current or past Holy Father is not as dogmatic on the matter of the number of Councils as some Catholics (surely a case of trying to be more Catholic than the Holy Father ).

True. But their agreement is important nevertheless for the sake of the peace of the Church.

That is not true at all. The Oriental Orthodox easily recognize much of what is orthodox in the rest of the Seven. The ACOE likewise. And, as noted, even the EO agreed to much of the theological arguments from Trent against the Protestants.

As you will note in my bio, I am indeed an Orthodox in communion with Rome. When I came into Catholic communion, I assure you I was not required to admit that there are 21 Ecumenical Councils in the Catholic Church. I don’t say this as if I am insulted by the insinuation, but seriously - who do you think you are to throw doubt on my status as a Catholic because I don’t accept the same number of Councils as you do? What authority do you have to lay this burdern on Eastern and Oriental Catholics when the Popes themselves have not laid that burden upon us?

Blessings,
Marduk

Ah, as always brother Marduk you help to put things into perspective. I can see, quite a bit now how the question of authoritative vs. infallible are two different things and that there are degrees by which they are held (like you said about the Vulgate, the Pope clearly did change this).

Then there is the fact that the Church does not seem to have infallibly determined the number of Ecumenical Councils…so it would seem as though it remains theological opinion…

So, just so I can get this clear for formulation:

It is the faith and morality determined in Trent, Lyons, Lateran I-V, etc. are what makes a Catholic and Catholic and what binds a Catholic…not the recognition of whether or not said council was strictly “ecumenical?”

Right?

 

[malphono]

The Sarum Rite is still extant, but only amonst the Anglican Church… as an EF.

Yes, but isn’t there also some so-called “Western Rite Orthodox” group using it as well? Either way, though, the Sarum usage had been suppressed and was revived. It most likely would have survived Trent had it not been for Henry VIII etc etc.

 

[Antonius_Lupus]

Yes, but isn’t there also some so-called “Western Rite Orthodox” group using it as well? Either way, though, the Sarum usage had been suppressed and was revived. It most likely would have survived Trent had it not been for Henry VIII etc etc.

Ah, yes another thing to thank the Tudors for…

 

[Ghosty]

Not everything that a Council teaches is infallible, you can’t dismiss the Council of Trent of being non infallible just because it taught that the Vulgate was the only acceptable Bible.

The Council of Trent certainly taught the Catholic Faith, and I don’t know of any Catholics who object to its teachings. It’s not so much a question of infallibility as it is one of how to consider a Council.

An example I used before was that of the Council of Orange, the Western Council which condemned Pelagianism. All agree that Pelagianism is a heresy, and that it is strictly a non-Catholic belief, even the Eastern Orthodox recognize this. Yet no one considers the Council of Orange Ecumenical. So it’s clear that a Council can have authoritative weight without the “prestige” of being Ecumenical; it’s not a question of the validity of the teachings of the Council, but its status and how it’s commemorated.

Peace and God bless!

 

[mardukm]

So, just so I can get this clear for formulation:

It is the faith and morality determined in Trent, Lyons, Lateran I-V, etc. are what makes a Catholic and Catholic and what binds a Catholic…not the recognition of whether or not said council was strictly “ecumenical?”

Right?

Correct.

Abundant blessings,
Marduk

 

[mardukm]

it’s not a question of the validity of the teachings of the Council, but its status and how it’s commemorated.

That’s a good way to put it.

 

[Antonius_Lupus]

Correct.

Abundant blessings,
Marduk

Ah, that is VERY refreshing!!!

Thank you so much, brother Marduk!

 

[Ad_Gentes]

It is possible that the issue on whether certain councils of the Church were ecumenical or not may never be settled. But the fact remains that the Catholic Church (at least in the West, which comprises the majority of Catholics) generally accepts that there are 21 ecumenical councils to include the Council of Trent. Have this been infallibly defined by the Church? No, it has not. But that in itself does not make it wrong. Is an Eastern Catholic required to acknowledge the actual number of ecumenical councils to be consider Catholic? I do not believe so. A Catholic is only required to adhere to those doctrines that have been infallibly defined. There are, however, many other issues with regard to Church discipline and canon law, which nevertheless bounds the Catholic faithful. I do not believe that agreeing on the actual number of ecumenical councils is one of them.

The Catholic Church (some may argue the Latin or Roman Church) has acknowledge throughout its history that it has held 21 ecumenical councils and there are many documents (not infallible) that support this fact. In recent years, the Church has acknowledge some differences between the East and the West (perhaps this being one of them), which are really not that important when it comes to doctrine, ecumenism, and being in full communion with Rome and each other. In my opinion, that may be the reason the Catechism of the Catholic Church only refers to the first seven ecumenical councils (also accepted by the Eastern Orthodox Churches) as such. In fact, the Catechism of the Catholic Church never uses the word ‘ecumenical’ when referring to the Council of Trent.

So, are all 21 councils of the Latin or Roman Church ecumenical? I guess it depends on your point of view. The Catholic Encyclopedia calls the Council of Trent the “Nineteenth Ecumenical Council”. The word ecumenical (Οικουμένη) refers to the “inhabited world”, and thus, according to the Catholic Encyclopedia, “Ecumenical Councils are those to which the bishops, and others entitled to vote, are convoked from the whole world (oikoumene) under the presidency of the pope or his legates, and the decrees of which, having received papal confirmation, bind all Christians.” Based on this definition, the Council of Trent could be considered ‘ecumenical’ since the pope called “all patriarchs, archbishops, bishops, and abbots” to assemble for a “general council” (another name for ecumenical council), the decrees were confirmed by the pope, and are binding to all Catholic Christians. Again, I am sure some will still disagree with this and find other supporting evidence to the contrary. The bottom line is that there are more important issues for us Christians than the actual number of ecumenical councils and, while we can agree to disagree, charity should prevail on these and other discussions between Christians of the East and West.

 

[Kook]

As to the original post, I know a couple of Eastern Catholics who were helped in their concerns on this by reading a lot of Aquinas, then being pleasantly surprised at the fact that he quotes St. John Damascene with such frequency. I’m not saying this will eliminate your own worries here, just that I’ve seen others go on as OK after doing this.

 

[Antonius_Lupus]

As to the original post, I know a couple of Eastern Catholics who were helped in their concerns on this by reading a lot of Aquinas, then being pleasantly surprised at the fact that he quotes St. John Damascene with such frequency. I’m not saying this will eliminate your own worries here, just that I’ve seen others go on as OK after doing this.

Thank you!