www.byzcath.org Forums Faith & Christian Life Faith & Theology The Ecumenical Councils: Are there 21 or only 7?

Cardinal Ratzinger said the following in his book Principles of Catholic Theology:
and

Todd,

Yes, that was right along the lines I was thinking. So perhaps you could help me think through something else as well. Namely, how do those statement work with Vatican I? It seems to me that restoring the primacy of the first thousand years would make Vatican I's pronouncement with regard to Papal infalllibility incorrect. Any thoughts on that?

Matt

Matt, I have read that before as well. The thing to keep in mind is he wrote that as a Cardinal, not as the Pope. I have not heard that he has said or written anything to that effect since his election. I'm not saying he doesn't stand by it or has changed his views, just that I have heard nothing further.

I am as interested as anybody else to see how his statement could possibly put in to a concrete form that does not shatter many of the post schism conciliar claims of the western church.

Andrew

Pope Benedict XVI, may he live long and do well, has certainly made it clear that his ecumenical commitment is not changed. Granted, that does not make his every utterance infallible, and still less does it extend such a character to his published writings before his election to the See of Rome. However, His Holiness is no fool and knows perfectly well that his published writings are avidly read and studied - and indeed that new editions were produced immediately after the election to meet the demand. Since he has always been a man of scrupulous intellectual honesty, if he thought it necessary to change an important position which he has previously and repeatedly espoused in public, he would do so without delay.

Incognitus

I am as interested as anybody else to see how his statement could possibly put in to a concrete form that does not shatter many of the post schism conciliar claims of the western church.

Right, the thing is that it seems that Vatican I at least has to go the way of the Dodo if Benedict/Ratzinger's statement is actually implemented. The solution seems to me to view the last 14 as local or general and not as ecumenical then they would be easier to "overturn" so to speak. Other western developments could be analyzed on an individual basis. Of course, this would be a pretty radical shift in Catholc teaching. What do you think?

Maybe, I as a Western Catholic don't fully understand the teachings at Vatican I. But it seems to me that when the Pope speaks ex cathedra (and he has only done so 2 or 3 times) that he only speaks on Faith and Morals; only does so if needed; and he only does it after consulting all the bishops that are in communion with him. Thereby eliminating a need to call a council over one doctrine. Travel is expensive you know, especially during wartime.

There is no mention (in Vatican 1) of the Pope having to consult with all the Bishops first, though sometimes he consults with advisers, which was the case for when Pope Pius IX proclaimed the Immaculate Conception. Here's what Vatican 1 says:

Of course only Cardinal Ratzinger can explain exactly what he meant in the comments that I've quoted above, but it appears to me that he is saying that the East will not be required to subscribe to the fourteen Latin Councils, or to the doctrinal formulations issued by them.

Even the Roman Catholic theologians who are part of the North American Catholic / Orthodox dialogue seem to be saying something like this in connection with the Second Council of Lyons, because they have indicated that the anathemas issued at that council concerning the "filioque" need to be rescinded.

Blessings to you,
Todd

Roman_Amy,

Right. What do you make of Benedict's statements (posted above) regarding Rome's primacy?

Apotheoun:

What I'm getting from what you're saying is that Eastern Catholicism is like 100% Eastern Orthodoxy, except that they are in some odd way in full communion with Rome. I'm lost here.

Is the Pope infallible when preaching ex cathedra, or not? Is there sometype of purgatory, or not? Is Mary conceived free of original sin, or not? Does the Holy Spirit proceed from the Father and the Son, or not? Is contraception immoral or not?

If Eastern Catholics can reject those other councils how can they believe or accept those doctrines? If they're not obliged to believe in those doctrines in some form, then how is there full communion with Rome? I don't get all this.

He wasn't Pope at the time that he said it and neither was he speaking officially as Prefect of the CDF. He was just stating personnal theological opinion. Plus, it is not completely clear what exactly is it that he meant.

May God bless you.

I can only speak for myself, but as an Eastern Catholic as see myself as Orthodox in communion with Rome.

Of course I accept the infallibility of the Pope, because I accept the infallibility of the Church.

As far as Mary's immaculate conception is concerned, I accept the teaching of the Eastern Churches, which hold that Mary never committed a sin. I don't believe she was preserved from a "stain" of sin, because there is no such thing. In other words, I don't accept the Augustinian view of original sin, but then neither does the Catechism of the Catholic Church, which clearly teaches that original sin is merely the absence of sanctifying grace, and not some kind of positive existing evil. Evil doesn't positively exist, and to hold that it does is Manichaean. Mary is immaculate because she possessed deifying energy from the moment of her conception.

The Holy Spirit as hypostasis proceeds only from the Father, and so I reject any form of the "filioque" that would make the Son a "cause" within the immanent life of the Trinity. Of course I do accept the manifestation of the Spirit through the Son in the divine energy, but this does not involve the hypostatic origin of the Spirit.

Of course contraception is immoral.
Eastern Catholics have to be faithful to their own ancestral traditions as both Vatican II and Pope John Paul II indicated. Thus, if they have lost or abandoned elements of their tradition through Latinizations, they are to recover those things and be fully and completely Byzantine in their spirituality and theology. De-Latinization of the Eastern Churches is going to take a long while, and it will be painful for some people, including some Westerners who think that their particular way of understanding the mystery of Christ is the only way of understanding it. Westerners are going to have to accept that some of the things that they see as so central to their understanding of the Catholic faith are merely particular expressions of their sui juris Church.

Blessings to you,
Todd

Here is a thread which deals with the topic of the Western theologoumenon of the "filioque":

The Filioque: Dogma, Theologoumenon or Error?

Thank you.

The whole question is such a "Latin" one anyway. They think by categorizing, labeling, organizing, quantifying, legislating something, then they're on top of things.

Why categorize and "rate" the councils in different classes and levels of authority, all the while, ignoring their teachings, violating their canons, and flaunting their disciplines.

I think we've missed the point.

Nick