Why are the later Western councils ecumenical?

[NoWings]

Ecumenical in it’s modern sense, not in the original form of the word.

Why is Vatican I, for example, an ecumenical council and not a local council?

Is it because the Pope and Magisterium say it is, or because it’s received into the Church and recognized by the laity and the clergy (including the Pope and bishops)?

If I remember correctly, councils are ecumenical in Orthodoxy because they’ve been received and accepted by the whole of the Church.

Not sure where I’m going with this. Thinking out loud maybe.

 

[Ghosty]

If I remember correctly, councils are ecumenical in Orthodoxy because they’ve been received and accepted by the whole of the Church.

That’s a common argument from Eastern Orthodox, but it’s unsound and ahistorical. No Ecumenical Council in history has been received and accepted by the whole Church; every one has led to Schism, as a sizable portion of the Church rejects it (the most notable being Chalcedon, in which at least a third or more of the Church broke away over the decision).

The Eastern Orthodox have no clear manner of establishing or accepting Ecumenical Councils since the Council of Florence.

Peace and God bless!

 

[Tradycja]

What I don’t understand about Eastern Orthodoxy is why, if Rome, according to them, “lost the Orthodox faith” don’t they hold an Ecumenical council without us? Surely there are many doctrinal disputes even within the Orthodox Church that are in need of settling.

 

[Jolly_Joe]

Ecumenical in it’s modern sense, not in the original form of the word.

Why is Vatican I, for example, an ecumenical council and not a local council?

Is it because the Pope and Magisterium say it is, or because it’s received into the Church and recognized by the laity and the clergy (including the Pope and bishops)?

If I remember correctly, councils are ecumenical in Orthodoxy because they’ve been received and accepted by the whole of the Church.

Not sure where I’m going with this. Thinking out loud maybe.

Well of course they aren’t. But you have the single Bishop of Rome change the definition of what the whole church was. He said that’s him, and he excommunicated all others. So from his standpoint any of the regional councils that include only Rome are ecumenical.

And note that you didn’t go back far enough, you have to include Trent, which really was just a small regional council.

So you have to decide on your definition of things, is the whole church the Bishop of Rome and those bishops in communion with him or isn’t it?

 

[jonnyws]

What I don’t understand about Eastern Orthodoxy is why, if Rome, according to them, “lost the Orthodox faith” don’t they hold an Ecumenical council without us? Surely there are many doctrinal disputes even within the Orthodox Church that are in need of settling.

Ecumenical Councils are called in response to great heresy when Orthodox faith is in danger of being wiped out. They are seen as Ecumenical after they have been concluded which is established basically on the fruits of the meeting and its ability to preserve the truth and unity of the Church. Therefore we have Seven Ecumenical councils, we have had councils since the schism but none have been declared Ecumenical. For example a council was called in 867 which condemned the Filioque and excommunicated Pope Nicholas. However the council is not seen as Ecumenical as Pope Nicholas’ successor refused to accept it and so the heresy was not substantially reduced nor was discord in the Church put down.

Each Ecumenical council has proclaimed the faith of the Saints of the time and their works, it has also unified the Church (even if that involved the excommunication of certain members) and triumphed over its chosen heresy. The Orthodox see an ecumenical council as a proclamation of a faith already known over and against heresy whereas the west tends to see them as meetings of bishops in which issues are debated and voted upon, as if the council is making dogma. For us a Synod, especially one involving all the Patriarchs, is the greatest way for the Church to proclaim a faith already known and to end all dispute over it, not a way of debating the truth of that faith. Likewise a council will not be called Ecumenical unless it achieves the ends it sets out to achieve.

If an heresy arose that threatened the Church I am sure that a Synod would be arranged to deal with that heresy, if what was proclaimed there went on to put down the heresy and bring greater unity then I have no doubt that the Church would cry out for it to be declared Ecumenical. However debates such as old calendar or new calendar do not warrant such a council, they are to be dealt with on a local level. You will not see an Orthodox equivalent of Vatican II.

Even as a Catholic I had trouble accepting any of the ‘Catholic’ councils as ecumenical with the exception of the Council of Trent and the First Vatican Council which condemned heresies, namely Protestantism at the first and then Atheism, Rationalism and Materialism at the second. All the others deposed specific individuals and/or brought into being new canons. In the East we have synods that depose individuals and bring in new canons all the time but we refer to them as local Synods, some of these are then accepted unilaterally by the whole Church but they are not seen as great Ecumenical councils.

Our two Churches simply have different ideas as to what an Ecumenical council is. Its not that we don’t hold and Ecumenical council with out Rome, it’s just we don’t ever set out to call an Ecumenical council, they simply happen and are declared as such after the event.

 

[mardukm]

The Orthodox see an ecumenical council as a proclamation of a faith already known over and against heresy

Where did you get the idea that the West views it differently? Is this what you learned in your EO classes? Is part of EO catechesis generally to create false dichotomies between the Eastern and Western Churches?

whereas the west tends to see them as meetings of bishops in which issues are debated and voted upon, as if the council is making dogma. For us a Synod, especially one involving all the Patriarchs, is the greatest way for the Church to proclaim a faith already known and to end all dispute over it, not a way of debating the truth of that faith.

Have you read the Acts of the Seven Ecumenical Councils. Remember how at Chalcedon, the bishops deliberated over the Tome of Leo? They took time to read and each one was called to give their aye or nay. Remember Nestorius and Pope St. Dioscorus? Yes, they deliberated and gave votes during the 7 Ecumenical Councils, and some of them even saw some debate action. Again, where are you getting these false dichotomies between how the East and West view or conduct Councils?

Even as a Catholic I had trouble accepting any of the ‘Catholic’ councils as ecumenical with the exception of the Council of Trent and the First Vatican Council which condemned heresies, namely Protestantism at the first and then Atheism, Rationalism and Materialism at the second. All the others deposed specific individuals and/or brought into being new canons.

The Catholic Church has never dogmatically ruled on the number of Ecumenical Councils. So aside from the First Seven, which is pretty much standard Sacred Tradition, one is not exactly required as a Catholic to regard the other “Ecumenical” Councils of the Catholic Church as “Ecumenical.” So that shouldn’t be a source of angst.

In the East we have synods that depose individuals and bring in new canons all the time but we refer to them as local Synods, some of these are then accepted unilaterally by the whole Church but they are not seen as great Ecumenical councils.

Remember the Trullan Synod, which the East tried to piggy-back onto an Ecumenical Council and impose its anti-Western rulings on the West?

Our two Churches simply have different ideas as to what an Ecumenical council is.

Not really, but it would be in the interests of certain EO to spread the false dichotomies.

Its not that we don’t hold and Ecumenical council with out Rome, it’s just we don’t ever set out to call an Ecumenical council, they simply happen and are declared as such after the event.

Where do you get this idea? Several of the Ecumenical Councils specifically CLAIMED to be Ecumenical. What in the world are they teaching you in your EO classes? (I say that lightheartedly)

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[Kook]

What I don’t understand about Eastern Orthodoxy is why, if Rome, according to them, “lost the Orthodox faith” don’t they hold an Ecumenical council without us? Surely there are many doctrinal disputes even within the Orthodox Church that are in need of settling.

Most Orthodox I know admit that they cannot call an ecumenical council. The only folks who could call one were the Emperor and the Pope. This strikes me as indicative of a broken ecclesiology, but it doesn’t bother them.

There’s also a problem of Orthodox folks not really being able to agree on what this whole “first among equals” idea for Constantinople means in practice, which is funny, since all loudly proclaim that this model was what was used in the early Church. See how well Patriarch Bartholomew has fared when he has attempted to act in that role. Or Moscow’s repeated (and utter groundless) claims that it now holds the primacy of the East.

 

[mardukm]

Or Moscow’s repeated (and utter groundless) claims that it now holds the primacy of the East.

I’ve heard that the MP makes this claim because his Church has the largest membership.

 

[trophybearer]

Most Orthodox I know admit that they cannot call an ecumenical council. The only folks who could call one were the Emperor and the Pope. This strikes me as indicative of a broken ecclesiology, but it doesn’t bother them.

There’s also a problem of Orthodox folks not really being able to agree on what this whole “first among equals” idea for Constantinople means in practice, which is funny, since all loudly proclaim that this model was what was used in the early Church. See how well Patriarch Bartholomew has fared when he has attempted to act in that role. Or Moscow’s repeated (and utter groundless) claims that it now holds the primacy of the East.

The Orthodox you know don’t know what they are talking about then… that or you’re fabricating your experience with them, which seems just as likely, since you have your agenda.

 

[bpbasilphx]

Many Orthodox hierarchs do not think it is opportune to call an Ecumenical Council at this time.

Among other reasons, it might simply freeze and fix the Old Calendar movement as a definite schism.

 

[mardukm]

Dear brother bpbasilphx,

Many Orthodox hierarchs do not think it is opportune to call an Ecumenical Council at this time.

Among other reasons, it might simply freeze and fix the Old Calendar movement as a definite schism.

That’s relevant and interesting info. I recall that when the Macedonian Orthodox wanted to join the Catholic Church formally, HH JP2 of thrice-blessed memory told them that they needed to regularize their status with the rest of canonical EO’xy first.

It should go without saying that the Latins should also fix its internal problems with the SSPX and perhaps work it out with the TAC and PNCC as well, first.

How about the OO and the Malankara Orthodox? Do you think it would be advisable for them to fix that situation first, or should the Malankara Orthodox be approached as a completely separate entity?

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[mardukm]

Ecumenical in it’s modern sense, not in the original form of the word.

Why is Vatican I, for example, an ecumenical council and not a local council?

Is it because the Pope and Magisterium say it is, or because it’s received into the Church and recognized by the laity and the clergy (including the Pope and bishops)?

If I remember correctly, councils are ecumenical in Orthodoxy because they’ve been received and accepted by the whole of the Church.

Not sure where I’m going with this. Thinking out loud maybe.

Later Western Councils are called “ecumenical” I think because the Latin Church thought it was the only true Church, and her councils were approved by him who was traditionally held to be the head bishop of the Church, the Pope. If she was the only true Church with the only true bishops, then it is not hard to understand that she considered her councils “ecumenical.”

Now (and for a while now, actually, even before Vatican 2), the Latin Catholic Church has recognized that she was/is not the only true Church. Since the Catholic Church has never defined the number of Ecumenical Councils, a Catholic would be free to believe that there are only seven Ecumenical Councils. Personally, I would accept several of the other “extra” Councils as Ecumenical, though certainly not all.

My impression is that there is not a clear definition of the term “ecumenical” itself in the first place. Is “ecumenical” tantamount to infallible authority, or does it refer merely to the recognition of the whole Church (or at least a moral unanimity of recognition), or does it refer to the extent of participation of the world’s bishops. Perhaps if we can distinguish these concepts, it might be easier to come to a common understanding.

I believe wholeheartedly that when the world’s bishops, being the God-appointed teachers of the Church, gather together with their head bishop, for the purpose of defining an issue of Faith for the whole Church, it cannot fail to have God’s special Grace to be able to define such an issue (i.e. infallibility). The laity certainly cannot grant an Ecumenical Council its infallible authority, for it is not the laity’s to give. The acceptance of individual members of the Church has no bearing on the inherent infallibilty of such a Council. Can we all agree on that?

The question seems to be, “can we accept a Council as ecumenical if not all the world’s bishops have participated?” Indeed, the Oriental Orthodox are willing to accept the formal dogmatic decrees of the other Seven Councils, but do not view them as Ecumenical simply because it lacked the participation of the Oriental Orthodox. In this view, the infallible teaching authority of the Council is not called into question (keeping in mind that infallibility refers only to the dogmatic decrees, not its canons or disciplinary decrees), and the term “Ecumenical” does not necessarily equate with “infallible,” but merely means “universal.” Here, the laity is seen to be represented by the bishops, and it is assumed that, according to the Scriptural and patristic standards, the faith of the laity is the same faith that the bishops have brought to the Council.

The Eastern Orthodox seems to have added a new element into the mix - the approval of the laity, as an entity separate from its bishops. According to the EO paradigm, the bishops can decree something, but if the laity reject it, then it has no authority. In this paradigm, the bishops in council no longer have the inherent protection of the Holy Spirit, but depends on the approval of the laity before its decrees can even be considered to be infallible. Let’s face it, what occurred among the EO after the Council of Florence - where her bishops were not even given a chance to address the laity, where those same bishops were not even given a chance to be heard in synod before being chased out by the laity - is the model on which the current EO ecclesiology is based.

Can we reconcile the EO ecclesiology with the hierarchical model and order of the Church in the first millenium? Before talks can go forward on this matter, ISTM, we would need a formal repudiation by the EO of the events that occurred after Florence, to ensure that this mob rule is not what the EO intend. I mean, sure, they can claim all they want that they do not teach that the authority of bishops should be rejected, but that does not detract from the fact that they base their ecclesiology on those very events that occurred after Florence. I’m not saying to repudiate the rejection of Florence, but merely repudiate the manner in which the EO rejected it. Would that be too much to ask?

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[Kook]

The Orthodox you know don’t know what they are talking about then… that or you’re fabricating your experience with them, which seems just as likely, since you have your agenda.

Given that my wife spent a couple of years exploring Orthodoxy and we had plenty of time to discuss its differences with Catholicism, I figure I’ve been around a decent sampling of folks, at least in Greek and Antiochean circles.

If I’m wrong, just say so and explain. Veiled calumny really doesn’t get your point across very well.