www.byzcath.org Forums Faith & Christian Life The Christian East & West Ecumenical Councils

I have a two part question regarding the Ecumenical Councils. It seems difficult to find a consensus on who convened the first seven councils. There also seems to be some contradictory information on which councils the non-Latin Rite Catholics consider Ecumenical.

So, my questions are:
[list]
[*]Who convened the first seven councils? The Emperor, the Pope, or both?
[*]Which councils do the non-Latin Rite Catholics consider Ecumenical?
[/list]

Well I believe this might be a little disputed.
The West at least believes to be considered Oecumenical they need to be received and recognized by the Pope.
Certainly the first 7 Oecumenical Councils have a precedence.
And are recognized by both the East and the West.
For the West there is a list of 21 Oecumenical Councils.

In my own oppinion this is a little problematic, I would say that there can be no truly Oecumenical Council after the break of communion between East and West.

Maybe some others would like to add some viewpoint.
Stephanos I

PS I would suggest that you study the issue thoroughly since both sides have valid points. Do be hasty in your decision.

The first seven Ecumenical Councils were all convened by the Emperor of the Romans. The Church of Rome did not even participate in several of them, and ratified them only later (sometimes considerably later). The Pope played a major theological role in just one of the Seven, the Council of Chacedon, where Pope Leo's "Tome to Flavian" formed the basis (but not the exclusive basis) of the Chalcedonian definition.

All the Apostolic Churches recognize the first two Councils (Nicaea I and Constantinople I). The Church of the East refused to recognize the third and subsequent Councils (Ephesus 431 and later), while the Oriental Orthodox Churches do not recognize the fourth and subsequent councils (Chalcedon and later).

There is no consensus among the Eastern Catholic Churches over which councils beyond the first seven are ecumenical.

Everything you said is right, but I struggle with the last point. Surely it is REQUIRED that Eastern Catholics accept the Roman councils post Second Nicea as Ecumenical?

The Eastern Churches were at Vatican II, they have a document from it. My take on it, if it is labeled as Ecumenical for Roman Catholics it has to be Ecumenical for Eastern Rite Catholics. That's why they're Eastern Catholic.

If it is, nobody told my patriarch.

StuartK; explain how someone can legitimately take a position of pick and choose when it comes to dogmatic matters?

It would seem particularly hard to pick and choose on ecumenical councils, because ultimately acceptance of the same set of ecumenical councils has determined who is in communion with who in Eastern Christianity; if the Orthodox are not in communion with the Oriental churches precisely because the Orientals didn't like Chalcedonian formulas, how much more so do rites within one church need to be held to the same standard? If one cannot be in communion with someone who does not accept the same councils, how can one be in the same church as them?

There is not one Eastern Catholic church and one Roman Catholic church. There is only a Roman Church. Whilst it allows those of Eastern heritage latitude on liturgical matters, it does not do so on dogmatic ones. If it did, it would be on the road to relativism, and give succour to liberal clergy of the Roman rite who feel that women priests are a jolly good idea etc. Because ultimately, if you join yourself to Rome you are agreeing to the Roman position. If one can no longer live with the Roman position, one should get out, and there are plenty of avenues for doing so.

It seems disingenuous to be PART of a church (not merely in communion with one) and not subscribe to its dogmatic beliefs. SSPX for example, didn't accept Vatican II, but they got out.

l'd be interested in how one could justify the position of "in the church, but not in unity of faith within it." If I understand you correctly, that is essentially what is being argued with regard to Eastern Catholicism and it's attitude to Ecumenical Councils.

Is it a dogmatic matter? There is no dogmatic list of ecumenical councils. The list commonly used by the Latin Church is a customary one, compiled by St. Robert Bellarmine in the 17th century for polemical purposes (he wanted to point out to Protestants that everything the Latin Church did had been determined by an ecumenical council), and it is fraught with inconsistencies.

Since the 1970s at least, the Catholic Church has been wrangling with the question of how councils that involved only one Church, which dealt with issues of concern only to one Church, and which were never received by any other Church, could in fact be called ecumenical and binding. No less a person than Pope Paul VI got the ball rolling in 1972, when he commemorated the anniversary of the Second Council of Lyons (one of particular interest to the Orthodox) not as an ecumenical council, but as a "general council of the Church in the West".

Catholic theologians have, since that time, slowly been moving to relativize the second millennium Western councils, recognizing that they do not have the same standing as the first Seven Councils (which all Catholic Churches accept, if only tacitly).

The recent Ravenna Statement is a continuation of that trend, establishing that reception, not any a priori set of conditions, determines the ecumenicity of a council, and as such, recognizes only the first seven councils (this ought to have pleased the Orthodox, since they have won the point once again). It calls for further discussion about the authority of those councils or synods held by each communion independently of the other since the Second Council of Nicaea. In effect, it says the second millennium Latin councils have the same authority within the Latin Church as the various pan-Orthodox synods have within the Orthodox Church. But Eastern Catholics, as always, represent an anomaly, since these second millennium Latin councils do not really concern us, and our true patrimony lies with the Orthodox Churches whence we came (even the Italo-Albanians can trace their lineage to the Church of Constantinople, while the Maronites can trace theirs to the Church of Antioch).

There is also the matter of the lex orandi: like the Orthodox, we commemorate the first Seven Councils in our liturgy (the Coptic, Syrian and Chaldean Catholics don't even commemorate all of those). None of us commemorates any of the later Latin councils, and to be blunt, they do not impinge upon our spiritual or theological consciousness.

I also think it ultimately silly for non-Catholics constantly to tell we who are in communion with the Church of Rome what we can and cannot do within that communion. You seem mostly worried that if we are given the freedom to be fully Orthodox within that communion, you will no longer have much excuse to remain outside of it.

Your characterization of the relationship of the Eastern Catholic Churches to the Church of Rome is seriously out of date, and I would suggest that you real all of the Vatican documents pertaining to us since the Second Vatican Council, with particular emphasis on the Decree on the Oriental Churches Orientalium ecclesiarum, the Instruction for Implementation of the Liturgical Provisions of the Code of Canons of the Oriental Churches, and the pastoral letter Orientale Lumen. You may find them surprising in the extent to which they exhort the Eastern Catholics to become fully Eastern, shedding all latinizations not only in liturgy, but in theology, spirituality, doctrine and discipline as well. That we have not done all that we could in this regard is actually more our own fault than those of Rome.

It would also behoove you not to drink either your own bathwater or that of certain Latin ultramontanists with regard to the nature of the Catholic Church. It is neither as rigidly hierarchical as you seem to believe, nor does the Pope have the kind of absolute power sometimes ascribed to him.

Finally, the relationship of the Eastern Catholic Churches to the Latin Church remains a work in progress, evolving incrementally due to the complex interaction of many divergent interests that on the one hand push us towards a closer relationship with our Orthodox brethren, and on the other, try to retain a subordinate position to the Church of Rome. Not all of the latter can be attributed to the interference of the Curia Romana--within our own ranks are many of a divided mind.

Hi Stuart,

I used to be Catholic.

I'm familiar with all of the debates about latinisation etc.

I would strongly agree that my view of what the Eastern Catholic rites should be to make their ecclesiological situation clear is "out of date". Personally, I don't consider that to be a bad thing - and there would be a number of Catholics who would think the Catholic Church was better in the "bad old days".

I accept the logic of your explanation of how you see things working within the model of "Churches within a Church" you propose, thankyou for clarifying.

I personally don't however see the logic of the churches within a church model itself, and like all debates in which the underlying beliefs of the protagonists are divergent, consensus can never be reached, so I won't turn this into a discourse in this forum.

I just wanted an example of an argument, and I think you presented one that works, provided one accepts its underlying definitions of and assumptions about the nature of Church.

Apparently more leniency is extended to the entirety of the Catholic Church than one would find in the Roman Catholic Church itself.

We can find such prominent Eastern Catholic prelates as Archbishop Zogby of the Melkites denying the dogmatic obligation of papal infallibility from Vatican I. One imagines that if this were an Irish or Italian bishop the boom would fall and he would be anathema. As the dogmatic definition concludes: "So then, should anyone, which God forbid, have the temerity to reject this definition of ours: let him be anathema."

But this anathema does not appear to extend to the Easterners who have a touch more freedom in dogmatic matters.

"Vatican I has the same designation as the Council of Lyons, a 'general' synod of the West. With this designation it is neither ecumenical nor infallible and could produce only theological opinions that can not be imposed on anyone"

~Melkite Catholic Archbishop Elias Zogby, "Ecumenical Reflections," Eastern Christian Publications, 1998.

Notice the implications. The Melkite Archbishop is denying papal infalliblity, the major dogma proclaimed at Vatican I. He is reducing it to a non essential theological opinion.

Consider, Father, that the later councils, being properly synods of the Latin Church, do have normative and binding value. . . on the Latin Church. Would you consider that a local synod of the Church of Greece would have any authority over the Church of Moscow, other than that to which Moscow itself assented?

And again, here we have an estimable Orthodox clergyman telling Greek Catholics what they must do, what they must believe, in order to fit into ROCORs understanding of the how the Catholic Church operates.

It's almost as though you fear I am correct, and would have to change some very dearly held preconceptions of your own.

Stuart,

Perhaps I have a different understanding to yours of the ecclesial position of the Eastern Catholics in the 19th century at the time of Vatican I. Their ecclesial position was quite unlike what you are now familiar with. They did not constitute "sui juris" Churches or "autonomous" Churches. They were constituted as different rites (NOT Churches) within the Roman Catholic Church.

They were known as "Roman Catholics of the Greek Rite" and "Roman Catholics of the Melkite Rite" etc. They were in the same situation as "Roman Catholics of the Mozarabic Rite" or "Roman Catholics of the Milanese Rite."

As such they were simply members of the one universal Roman Catholic Church and Vatican I was as obligatory for them as for any other Roman Catholics.

If I am wrong on this, I invite correction from knowledgeable folk.

I moved into the Russian Orthodox Church Abroad only in 1996; I was 50 years old. My knowledge of the Catholic Church was learnt decades before that and has no dependency on my membership of the Russian Church.

Bless, Father,

I think the ultimate example of Rome's attitude toward Eastern Catholics in the Vatican I period - and the expectations that it had of imposing its decree on us - is illustrated by the experience of Patriarch Gregory II Youssef, of blessed memory.

Father Archimandrite Ignatius Dick quotes His Beatitude


The Melkite hierarchs voted non placet at the general session and left Rome, together with some other Eastern Catholic hierarchs, before Pastor Aeternus was adopted. Subsequently, a legate was sent to secure their signatures - which they affixed, but over the caveat 'excepting always the rights and privileges of the Oriental Patriarchs'.

On His Beatitude's next visit to Rome, papal guards threw him to the floor before Pope Pius, who planted his foot on the Patriarch's neck, presumably to make clear to him that - like it or not - the Melkites were subservient to Rome. I'd say that was a fair indication of Rome's attitude toward Eastern Catholics at the time.

And, I'm not an Orthodox cleric, by the way.

Many years,

Neil

However, it is not 1871.

I would say that your assessment of the situation at that time is correct, but that StuartK is also correct in saying that those days are long gone.