www.byzcath.org Forums Faith & Christian Life The Christian East & West What councils are binding upon Byzantines!

Can. 750 Those things are to be believed by divine and catholic faith which are contained in the word of God as it has been written or handed down by tradition, that is, in the single deposit of faith entrusted to the Church, and which are at the same time proposed as divinely revealed either by the solemn Magisterium of the Church, or by its ordinary and universal Magisterium, which is manifested by the common adherence of Christ's faithful under the guidance of the sacred Magisterium. All are therefore bound to shun any contrary doctrines.

From the Seventh Session of the Council of Trent:

CANON III.-If any one saith, that the ordinary minister of holy confirmation is not the bishop alone, but any simple priest soever; let him be anathema.

From the Code of Canons for the Latin Church:

Can. 882 The ordinary minister of confirmation is a Bishop. A priest can also validly confer this sacrament if he has the faculty to do so, either from the general law or by way of a special grant from the competent authority.

Can. 884 �1 The diocesan Bishop is himself to administer confirmation or to ensure that it is administered by another Bishop. If necessity so requires, he may grant to one or several specified priests the faculty to administer this sacrament.

Joe --

Being extremely unlearned in this area, would you help me understand something: how does a teaching become canon law? What is the process? How does this differ from the mere principles set forth in a council, which I thought all Christians were bound to keep.

For instance, at the Council of Orange, there were a number of canons which set forth rules of behavior and placed anethemas upon those disobeying them. Were these just for the local and immediate Church, or for the Church of all time?

WHO teaches WHAT and HOW and WHEN so that it becomes canon law?

Sorry. I just never really got interested in this stuff before.

Brother Ed

Dear Joe Bad Boy,

I don't disagree with you, but I do disagree with your contention that Councils don't figure.

Canon law is also based on the "canons" of the Councils.

"Council law?" The Orthodox also have canon law and this is based on the canons of the Councils. They only promulgated canons.

You've put your nasty finger on a difference between Catholicism and Orthodoxy in that the former doesn't feel it has to wait for a Council to establish new canon laws.

The point with respect to "ecumenical" versus "general" councils is important from a theological point of view, as our Esteemed Administrator has discussed and illumined for us.

But the Orthodox Church has and does take the canons of local church councils and has declared them universal for the Church. So even if a canon comes from a local or regional council, that doesn't mean the Church can't later extend it to the rest of the Church.

And the canons of Church Councils aren't the only source for canon law. The Catholic Church uses her Magisterium as a "central clearing house" for the definition of binding canons drawn from Councils, papal decisions etc.

The Orthodox Church is less centralized in this respect, but does emphasize the Seven Ecumenical Councils and recommends the reading of the Rudder so that Christians may learn canon law for their daily lives.

The Catholic Church tends to see canon law as we see secular law - something for the courts and lawyers to know and interpret and that laity learn about from Church catechesis.

Alex

Admin,
My saying it is "unclear" was my opinion.

Unlike yourself and many others here, I am not fully "formed". I am still learning. I also do not have many byzantine Catholics it interact with in my current location. That is why I am here. To learn.

After rereading the section and reading your reply quoted above, it is more clear than before and I do believe that it is saying what you said is says.

I would be interested in Anthony's comment on this section from our catechism.


David

I have seen this section of the Light and Life series before, and while it implies that only Roman Catholics recognize these councils as ecumenical, note that it doesn't explicitly deny that they are ecumenical. I think that it is very carefully worded, probably for "political" reasons. This is a potential can of worms, and had to be handled carefully.

The question that I have is this: does Rome expect us to acknowledge these councils as ecumenical?

Every document that I have seen from Rome, with the notable exception of the statement by Pope Paul VI, indicates an affirmative answer. Others on this thread of great learning, including our Administrator, apparently believe that Rome does not expect us to consider these councils as ecumenical. But I have not seen any evidence for this. If they are aware of an official document from Rome that says otherwise, I would be very happy to see it.

I think that it would be very interesting to hear the answers of our bishops to this query. It would be even more interesting to write a letter to the Congregation for the Oriental Churches in Rome, and get their answer concerning what Rome expects from us.

Of course, as I have said before, this entire question is a matter of terminology. In our day to day practice these later councils generally have no bearing on us, and do not hold the same weight as the first seven. Whether we call them ecumenical or not doesn't change this. But I am curious about what Rome wants us to call them...

Anthony

Dear Anthony,

You've hit on an important point that reflects the theological perspectives extant among Byzantine Catholics.

There is, first of all, what Rome teaches us to believe. Then there is what some of us tell Rome we are GOING to believe. When other Byz. Catholics are asked what they believe, they simply tell us to ask Rome.

But in conversations between Eastern and Oriental Orthodoxy, the principle is admitted that what is contained in the first three Councils is reflected also in the later four.

But Eastern Orthodoxy will not agree to union with the Oriental Orthodox until the later four Councils are somehow acknowledged by them as Orthodox etc. or beyond this.

The problem here vis-a-vis Rome is a similar one.

The Roman Patriarchate acknowledges 21 Ecumenical Councils because: 1) it has either held them (the later 14) or else was present at them (the first Seven); 2) The Roman Church, although Particular, was widespread throughout the known world, including its puppet Eastern Patriarchs and so believes that the later councils are truly ecumenical in terms of universality etc.

The Catholicity of the Roman Patriarchate will therefore be really tested here if it can move beyond the theological parameters of its own Particular historical development in this area and acknowledge the legitimacy of other Church theologies whose Catholic legitimacy and Orthodox development do not need the canons of the other 14 Latin Councils.

So while you are absolutely right in saying that Rome expects us to agree to the 14 Latin Regional Councils, we too have an obligation to explain to Rome that we are more than just Churches with Particular liturgical heritages, but that we are also in possession of our own Particular theologies that differ markedly from Rome's by way of method and development, even though they come to similar conclusions.

That's your responsibility at EWTN too, Big Guy.

Perhaps you could tell Mother Angelica about this - one way of ensuring she gets well soon so she can get up and get a hold of you

Also, that question on the EWTN about RC's venerating St Mark of Ephesus.

Could it be that the RC's have a proselytist agenda in this?

Is that possible?

Alex

Slava Isusu Christu!

Byzantine Catholics are bound to accept all 21 Ecumenical Councils by Canon Law. All in Communion with the Church of Rome are bound by them in so far as it applies to them as a sui iuris Church. It is up to the our Congregation in Rome to apply the parts of the latest Ecumenical Council to us and put into affect its teachings and directives. Not everything can apply to us, but what does we are bound to believe, uphold, and apply.

In Christ,


Robert

Dear Robert,

Yes, but you do acknowledge there are things in the later councils that don't apply to us.

What if there is a teaching such as the Immaculate Conception that teaches Our Lady to have been conceived in holiness and without Original Sin - what if our Churches have already and always believed the Mother of God to be completely holy and without any stain of sin?

How could a Latin teaching in this regard teach us anything then?

Alex

Anthony,

Please provide an infallible reference that a) explicitly states that Byzantine Catholics are required to hold the decisions of the last 14 General Councils in the West at the same level as the Seven Ecumenical Councils, b) Byzantine Catholic theology is subordinate to Latin Catholic theology, and c) that we must accept the Latin Catholic approach as normative and our own as acceptable only when we are given permission to do so.

Looking to the Latin Catholic tradition for permission to be who we already are is not something that flows from an Eastern theological mindset.

--


This not correct.

Byzantine Catholics are required to acknowledge that these later General Councils in the West are valid. We are not required to accept them as ecumenical. We are not required to discard perfectly valid Byzantine theology in favor of the Latin theological expressions proclaimed at most of these councils.

Admin

"The Byzantine Churches venerate the seven councils during the course of the liturgical year."


Liturgically speaking, it stops there. Maybe we are "not clear" (can you hear me now?) on the other 14 councils held by the Latins because no umnbrella authority reaching across the Eastern Catholics CAN officially accept them? We are able to introduce feast days of saints an Marian apparitions from after the schism locally but not any "universal" or "general" councils. Hmmmmm. It looks like another one of those areas we can't positively declare without it being celebrated, hence the sense of muteness one gets in these areas.

Does this remind you of those Eastern Catholic Churches who ran out and introduced the Feast of the Immaculate Conception and in order to do so they had to move the feast day, change its name and theme, rename parish churches, and introduce inorganic hymns to honor it because our Byzantine Church (Catholic and Orthodox) did not write any stichera for it according to any Augustinian philosophy?

Now, those parishes are dropping the IC name and returning to their original St. Marys name, moving back the day of festive celebration to its rightful day, emphasizing once again the Feast of ST. ANNE, and singing from our own organically grown liturgical texts, which simply follows our own Typicon for a change. A sobering process as we return to seeing things with Byzantine Eyes.

[ 09-12-2002: Message edited by: Joe T ]

Hi:


The apparent conflict can be resolved if you say that the Eastern Churches administer the Eucharist to their infants but not out of necessity.

Praying the Rosary is not necessary, yet we do pray it, and it is good.

Shalom,
Memo.

Hi again:


In the Latin Church, the priest can be extraordinary minister of the sacrament of Confirmation, the bishop is still the only ordinary minister.

As to exactly how the sacrament of Confirmation as celebrated by the Latin Church relates to the mystery of Chrismation as celebrated by the Byzantine Churches, and to whether the fact that in the Byzantine Churches the priest regularly (although I don't know if ordinarily) administers this mystery presents any conflict with the quoted Canon from the Council of Trent, I declare myself ignornat.

Shalom,
Memo.

These things, such as bishops conferring ordination, can be changed, because they are a matter of discipline, not a matter of faith or morals.

Memo,
You sound like you don't know what you are talking about in regards to infants receiving the Eucharist. The Council of Trent is a disgrace to our Orthodox Holy Tradition when it hinders the baptized infants from Holy Communion. Why isn't the Eucharist a necessity? Is it not life-saving for infants but reserved for the western rational man & woman? It's a shame that the Byzantine Catholic Church has not told Rome of its error and made the necessary correction to such an "ecumenical council" canon.