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

Friends,

To be honest with you, this question always makes my head spin. In principle, I completely understand where our esteemed administrator is coming from. The last 14 councils (with a few exceptions) have almost no bearing upon us Easterners, and are not part of our patrimony. However, every "official" document on the subject that comes out of Rome speaks of 21 Ecumenical Councils. While Pope Paul VI clearly seemd to be moving in the direction of considering the last 14 councils as "general," as opposed to "ecumenical," Pope John Paul II has not followed this trend. Thus, all of the evidence that I see indicates that Rome expects all Catholics to accept all 21 councils as ecumenical. And since Rome expects this of us, I assume that most of our bishops do not disagree. Thus, the most "official" answer that I can give is that we are required to accept all 21 councils as Ecumenical, although the first seven are clearly of greater importance and authority.

When I answer questions on EWTN, I have to give answers that respect the "official" teachings of the Church, in full conformity with Rome. Perhaps Rome will one day label the last 14 councils as "general councils of the West." Who knows. But until then, Rome expects us to acknowledge 21 Ecumenical Councils. Of course the rulings and decisions of these last 14 councils generally have absolutely nothing to do with us, so it really just a matter of respecting the list of Councils drawn up by Rome - a list that theoretically could be changed.

Any thoughts?

Anthony

This is not accurate. Rome clearly expects us to accept that all of the later General Councils in the West are valid, but since they mostly don�t affect us they do not in any way qualify as �ecumenical� in the same sense as the Seven Ecumenical Councils. The fact that Rome is indifferent to this is merely a product of the Latin mentality that Latin = Catholic. It is our challenge to educate the Roman Catholics about the catholicity of the Church by embracing the call of Pope John Paul II in Orientale Lumen and fully witnessing Byzantine Orthodoxy within Catholic communion.

Of course, one of the issues here is how one defines the term �ecumenical�. It means �general housekeeping� (more or less) and can be applied at many different levels. It is understandable that the tendency of Latin Catholics to consider it differently than the rest of Catholicism and Orthodoxy since in many ways the Latin Catholics still consider the Latin Catholic experience both the touchstone and normative experience of Catholicism. This only shows we have much work to do.

If anyone has the �Light for Life� catechism at hand please post the section that delineates the difference between the Seven Councils and the later 14. It�s been awhile but I think it make note that the only the Roman Catholics hold the later 14 as ecumenical while we assign them to another category.

Durak,

Not using artificial birth control is a Catholic practice, not a Roman practice. The entire Catholic Church has always held that it's sinful, no matter how many people believe otherwise.

ChristTeen287

Are general councils dogmatically and doctrinally binding as are ecumenical councils? I thought they weren't, but that seems to be what Mr. Dragani is implying. I'm just curious.

ChristTeen287

Dear Administrator,

You may think me an "impasta," but I wanted to add to your illuminating ruminations . . .

I think you hit on the key with your explication of the Latin mentality that considers its definitions of faith and morals in the subsequent 14 Councils as "adding something" to our weak Eastern theological perceptions.

I've heard this on EWTN as well.

Our explanatory "Letters to the Latins" should distinguish between the FORM of the definition of faith and the SUBSTANCE.

So the substance of Mariology would be that we both believe in the total holiness of the Mother of God and her being taken to heaven body and soul by her Son.

The forms are where we differ and where we do not need to be taught anything by any later general council or papal statements.

People like my aunt believe that since the Orthodox Church doesn't accept the Immaculate Conception (form) it holds that Our Lady had the "stain of Original Sin" on her soul at her Conception (mistaken substance).

In my humble view, (and I'm proud of my humility, as you know), when RC's expect us to adhere to the 21 Councils, we could really confuse them by saying that we "always have when even not one of the later 14 councils had convened."

That is what I got out of your spaghetti analogy.

Although, as an Eastern Christian, one would have thought that you would have used something like, say, cous-cous . . .

Just love y'a, Administrator, er, good afternoon, Sir!

Alex

No councils are binding on anyone! Not general councils, not ecumenical councils, not local councils or even Boy Scout councils.

The only think that is binding on Catholics is their respective Code of Canons. Roman Catholics are bound by the Code of Canons for the Latin Church (1983). Eastern Catholics are bound by the Code of Canons for the Eastern Churches (1996).

There hasn't been a council since Vatican II, over 35 years ago. Since then the Latin Code was promulgated in 1983 and the Eastern Code in 1996.

The magesterium of the Catholic Church is well aware of what was decreed in these earlier councils and have implemented them into their repsective code of canons.

Catholics are bound by their code of canons, not councils.

Joe Prokopchak
archsinner

Dear Archsinner Joe,

I would, in my ignorance, qualify what you've said by saying that the Latin Church sees all 21 Councils and their decisions binding on all Catholics AS INTERPRETED AND TAUGHT by the Church's Magisterium, the ultimate arbiter here.

The Canons are certainly binding, but Canons is what the Councils always produce anyway.

And the Church has overturned previously defined Canons such as the rule of fasting for Wednesday and Friday that was changed to Friday and Saturday in the Western Church - that resulted in censure of Rome by the rest of the Church.

I think your statement was a bit, well, overarching . . .

(When did you get to be so good with a camera?)

Alex

Boy this is one of the most confused threads I have read in a while!
Your fate my dear Byzantine Catholics will continue to be under Roman submission and obligated to their last 14 "ecumenical councils." One cannot pick and chose what he or she likes. The Adminstrator is to be commended for promoting to educate the Church of the Romans.

The current Pope desires the Eastern Catholic Churches to return to the practice of their Holy Traditions but will not declare the last 14 "ecumenical councils" as general councils. I am not going to hold my breath so no one should hold their breath. Can anyone provide me with a papal document stating the last 14 "ecumenical councils" are mere general councils and not binding on Eastern Catholics? Here lies the crux of the problems! This is why, I believe, that the Melkites will need to return to the communion of the Orthodox Church. They were never in essence in communion with this papal mentality. That's why I believe relativism is rampant in your churches if not this in this thread.

I quickly scanned in the section from Chapter 3 of Light for Life Part One The Mystery Believed.

IMHO, I do not think it clears much up.

The Catholic and (Byzantine) Orthodox Churches together recognize seven such councils as ecumenical: 1) Nicea 1(325), which defined the divinity of the Son, 2) Constantinople 1(381), which defined the divinity of the Holy Spirit; 3) Ephesus (431), which condemned Nestorianism and proclaimed that Christ, truly God, was conceived and born of the Virgin Mary, who may truly be called �God-bearer� (in Greek, Theotokos); 4) Chalcedon (451), which accepted the �Tome to Flavian� of St. Leo, Pope of Rome, and defined that Christ was truly God and truly man, one person in two natures; 5) Constantinople II (553), which further explained the definitions of Chalcedon by condemning the �Three Chapters� of Theodore of Mopsuestia and Theodoret and the letter of Ibas to Mans; 6) Constantinople III (680�681), which again further explained Chalcedon by defining that Christ, as true God and true man, has two wills, one divine and one human; and 7) Nicea 11(787), which condemned iconoclasm, the opinion that icons of Christ and the saints could not be made.

The Oriental Orthodox Churches (Armenian, Coptic and Syrian) did not accept the fourth council and consequently any that followed. For this reason they are often called �non-Chalcedonian.� The Assyrian Church did not accept Ephesus and so recognizes only the first two councils as ecumenical.

The Byzantine Churches venerate the seven councils during the course of the liturgical year. The first Ecumenical Council, Nicea I, is always commemorated on the Sunday after the feast of the Ascension, The first six Councils are remembered together on the Sunday that falls between July 13�19. The seventh Council is commemorated on the Sunday that falls between October 1 1�17. The seventh Council has particular importance for the true worship of the Church, for the veneration and use of icons and for its vision that Christ was both God and man and is the image of the Father for us.

The Roman Catholic Church further recognizes fourteen other councils as ecumenical, stipulating that a council is ecumenical when it is so called by the pope. Although none of the early Councils were convened by the pope, his confirmation of their decrees was to be sought.6 Those councils that particularly involved the Eastern Churches were the following:
the Council of Constantinople IV (869�870), which concerned the schism at the time of the Patriarch Photius~7 the Councils of Lyons (1245) and of Florence (1438�1439), which attempted to make unions with various Orthodox Churches, and the most recent Council, Vatican II, which reaffirmed the importance of ecumenism (the movement to seek the unity of all Christian Churches) and which explicitly recognizes the place and importance of the Eastern Catholic Churches. Representatives of the Eastern Catholic Churches in union with Rome took part at the first and second Vatican Councils (1870, 1962�1965).


David

So the answer is that 'ecumencial' might mean different things! Let us put this aside as we work towards unity. This is not a road block.

Axios

Why is this not clear? There is no argument from the Byzantine Catholic perspective on the validity of these later general councils in the west. The issue is whether they are ecumenical as were the Seven Councils. Our catechism does not speak definitively on this issue but it is pretty clear from what you have quoted that our bishops acknowledge a difference. It should be noted that the text states that the �The Roman Catholic Church further recognizes fourteen other councils as ecumenical, stipulating that a council is ecumenical when it is so called by the pope.� We are not Roman Catholic and this is an acknowledgement that the Latin Church has a different definition of what constitutes �ecumenical� than we do. The whole thing is rather a molehill, except that most Latin Catholics are in need of education about the rest of the Church.

Alex wrote: >>....by saying that the Latin Church sees all 21 Councils and their decisions binding on all Catholics....<<
________________________________________________

Alex,

I provided an example of a decree, canon iv, from the Council of Trent. It is in direct opposition to the Code of Canons for the Eastern Churches. If anyone thinks Eastern Catholics are bound by this canon from the Council of Trent, the one that ends with ..."let them be anathema", they need to schedule themselves a drug test.

Catholics are bound by their respective Code of Canon Law. Not councils. Ever hear of Canon Law? I have. Ever hear of Council Law? I haven't. How about a Canon Lawyer? Yep, them too. How about a Council Lawyer? Nah, I don't think so.

Joe Prokopchak
Byzantine Bad Boy

Joe:
Trent does not anathematize the practice, but the claim that such a practice is a necessity; the CCEC does not claim necessity, it prescribes a practice that follows the norms of the Church. These texts are not in direct opposition.

Similarly Canon 1 of this session, which states
,
does not anathematize reception under both species, only that claim that such reception is necessary. Indeed Trent adds to the Canons of this session:

djs

[ 09-11-2002: Message edited by: djs ]

Dear Joe,

What do you mean? Are you saying that a Catholic is not bound to believe in the Resurection of Christ because it is not a part of Canon Law???

Please explain.

There are many referances in the Code of Canons to the Gospel of Christ, the Sacred Scriptures, the Word of God, Sacred Tradition , etc. That would include the Resurection of Christ.

Joe Prokopchak
archsinner