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

Thanks Mor & Stuart,

I figured the blood was what was given more often to the infant. But I thought you guys on the East would have given the blood to the infant via a spoon. The practice of dipping the finger makes perfect sense. So much sense infact, that I don't know why we in the West couldn't do the same. I don't know if it's just me, but something about the Eastern practice of administering communion to the infant, seems just so familia.


Justin

Joe -- that is so cool!! God bless you and the ECF teachers everywhere who labor to instill the beauty of the faith in our precious children. From time to time I still lament the fact that I didn't find this beauty and truth 25 years ago.

As for the paedocommunion issue, it was exactly this which convinced me that I belonged in the East!! In the PCA (Presbyterian Church in America) which I left, there is currently an EXTREMELY hot debate over this exact issue. There is a growing movement of people who are seeing that if the children of the Old Covenant could partake of the Passover Meal, WHY should the children of the New Covenant, which is a "better covenant which speaks of better things" be denied the grace of God? There are pastors who are communing their children IN DEFIANCE of the General Assembly, who responded to the issue by saying "Well, it's not our tradition to commune babies".

When I first heard the cassette tape defending this practice I accepted what was being taught and began to sneak communion to my boys during the closing prayers.

I still smile from ear to ear when I see the precious little children in our parish receiving Jesus!!

Brother Ed

Altar Boy Ed,

Can you imagine if all mothers denied their little ones food and drink until they reached the "age of reason?"

Let the little children come.

And what is so great about the age of reason, especially when many reasonable agers have opted to excommunicate themselves on their own with all that capacity to reason?

Let the little children come.

Jesus had a reason and nowhere in the Gospels does he debate with them or call them a brood of vipers for what they learned before the age of reason.

Let the little children come.

In the pack of Apostles, there was one who betrayed Him, one who doubted Him, one who denied Him, and one or two who worried about who will sit next to Him in the next Kingdom. Too much reason.

Let the little children come.

The debate over infant communion is not so much over what is proper, but what suits us and our "personal spiritualities." I have yet to hear a reasonable argument against infant communion.

Let the little children come.

For too long, we went through what may seemed to have been embarrassing rituals of Baptism and Chrismation without Eucharist for our infants. What were we trying to prove?

Let the little children come.

At one time we communicated Latin children who were not fully initiated (no Confirmation) but denied Communion to our own little ones because they were fully initiated. Never got that one.

Let the little children come.

Stop Eucharistic Infanticide now!
Do it for the sake of the children!

[ 09-15-2002: Message edited by: Joe T ]

Admin.,

A) No one is claiming that the later 14 Councils have the same importance as the first seven. Pope John Paul has said that the first seven hold a special place. All that I am arguing is that Rome expects Eastern Catholics to give these later 14 councils "lip service" as being ecumenical, even though they generally have no bearing on us. This can change, and such a change would probably greatly further ecumenical progress. But until then, the folks in the Roman Curia expect us to consider these councils as having ecumenical authority, although (again) they generally do not effect us at all.

Please note what I am NOT saying. I am not saying that Eastern Catholics should adopt the theological expressions used by these later councils. Nor should we particularly pay a great deal of attention to them, since most of them do not concern us nor deal with issues relevant to us.

I am basing this opinion on all of the documents from Rome that I have seen that consistently list 21 Ecumenical Councils, and constantly refer to Vatican I and II as Ecumenical Councils. Since I am writing my dissertation on one aspect of Vatican II, I am reading document, after document, after document from Pope John Paul and the Curia that call Vatican II "ecumenical." I can only conclude that Rome still considers these councils as "ecumenical." I have not seen any exceptions in these documents, which say that these councils are "ecumenical" only for the Latin Church. Such a statement would be nonsensical.

Again, I am with you 100% in spirit. But I do think that any sincere ecumenical dialogue needs to honestly and clearly consider things where they are at. From what I see, the powers that be in Rome still hold to the later councils being ecumenical. This fact has very real ramifications for reconciliation with the Orthodox Churches. As much as this situation may disappoint us, to say that Rome now considers these to be mere "General Councils of the West," when in fact Rome does not, is only to whitewash the difficulty. We need to tackle this ecumenical obstacle head on through sincere dialogue, not ignore it.

B) Of course Byzantine theology is NOT subordinate to Roman theology. In fact Vatican II explictly states otherwise.

C) Again, Vatican II and all subsequent Church documents urge us to consider our own Byzantine theology as normative for us. We do not need permission from anyone to be Byzantine.

I look forward to your further thoughts on this issue.

Anthony

Dear Anthony,

O.K. now what about the Council of Florence?

It is clear that the Unions of Brest-Litovske and of Uzhorod were based on the theological consensus developed at that Council.

Is it not an example of a Latin Council that actually DID have an impact on certain Particular Eastern Catholic Churches, over and above the first seven?

Is it true that our Churches owe their existence to Florence via the local councils that proclaimed the union with Rome?

Alex

Justin,
In our Churches we give our infants the Eucharist via spoon. This has never been a problem for us. I have a problem with your view as well as understanding of adminstering the Body & Blood to the infant. In the Chalice, lies both Body & Blood. To say an infant receives more of the Blood than the Body or vice verse is very inappropriate. Both divine elements are present and are presented to the communicant without measurement. End of story.

Alex,

You never fail to raise provocative questions! It most certainly is true that some of the later councils has had a direct impact on the Eastern Catholic Churches. Indeed, the theological consensus established at Florence was (historically) a major factor that facilitated the creation of the unia. Unfortunately, Florence was in no way a real encounter between Eastern and Western theology. The Eastern delegates (in most cases) were completely dumbfounded by the new "scholastic" philosophy that was espoused by the Latin delegates, and did not know how to respond. Likewise, they were pressured into accepting a speedy union by the Byzantine Emperor, who wanted to secure military help against the Islamic thread. Thus, Florence tacitly introduced the principle of "diversity in liturgy, uniformity in theology." At the closing ceremony of the council, the Byzantine delegates were required to sing the Filioque no less than three times! The Eastern Catholic Churches have had to suffer under the ramifications of this failed approach.

More recently, the second Vatican Council has had a very direct and positive impact upon us. In fact, there is at least one statement from this council that is authoritatively binding upon all Eastern Catholics:

"History, tradition and abundant ecclesiastical institutions bear outstanding witness to the great merit owing to the Eastern Churches by the universal Church. The Sacred Council, therefore, not only accords to this ecclesiastical and spiritual heritage the high regard which is its due and rightful praise, but also unhesitatingly looks on it as the heritage of the universal Church. For this reason it solemnly declares that the Churches of the East, as much as those of the West, have a full right and are in duty bound to rule themselves, each in accordance with its own established disciplines, since all these are praiseworthy by reason of their venerable antiquity, more harmonious with the character of their faithful and more suited to the promotion of the good of souls,"
(Orientalium Ecclesiarum, no. 5).

Anthony

Dear Anthony,

And you never fail to give provocative answers, Father Angelicus!

So clearly, the Council of Florence DID have an impact on Eastern Catholic Churches according to the principle, that you so brilliantly pinpointed, "theological sameness in liturgical diversity."

And clearly such "theological unity" offended the integrity of Eastern Catholic theological diversity that is also part and parcel of our respective Particular patrimonies.

And, by your own admission, we are negatively impacted by Florence and the unions inspired by it to this day.

By the same token, Vatican II has also had a (more positive) impact on the Eastern Catholic Churches. In fact, the whole process of Byzantine reform in our Churches today derives from the imperatives and principles in this regard established by Vatican II, does it not?

Therefore, we have two good examples of how Roman Catholic Councils have impacted our Eastern Churches.

It is hard to defend the idea that the later 14 Latin Councils have little to do with us when our very Churches stem from Florence and the union Councils emanating from it, and the whole raison d'etre of what we are about in terms of returning to our Eastern traditions is done under the aegis of Vatican II's spirit - and other documents by the Pope, Dominus Iesus etc.

And I understand that representatives of the Eastern Church were present at the Council of Lyons and that St Peter Akerovych of Kyiv and some others were positively predisposed to reunion with Rome (Holweck states that Met. St Peter was "personally in union with Rome" when he left Lyons).

So how can we really say none of the later Roman Councils had no impact on us when there seems to be quite an organic relationship to at least two or three such Councils, relating to our very existence as Particular Catholic Churches?

I hope I'm not taking you away from answering questions on EWTN . . .

Alex

Yes, I'm aware that the Church teaches both body and blood of Christ being present in both what would be the bread and wine. I suppose I just said what I said in the wrong way.

As for administering the *body & blood* with a spoon, how would you know there's never been a problem? What are you a Priest? Or is this Rum Orthodox sipping on some of his/her mystical propehtic experience?


Justin

It would seem to me that Eastern Catholics would hasten to admit that Vatican II was ecumenical, since it has generally effected Eastern Catholicism very positively, and admonishes Easterners to return to their traditions. Why, then, would it be logical to assume that any of the other 14 councils were not ecumenical, even if they effected the East less positively? I'm not saying that is what you are saying, Alex or Anthony, I'm just throwin' out ideas.

ChristTeen287

I'm in Church you silly rabbit! Tricks are for kids!
Okay, okay enough. The truth is I usher all the children in line to approach the Chalice with their arms folded across their chest. That is my principle duty as principal. Do you see my principality? lol

Speaking of sipping on mystical drinks, how did you know this? Every Feast Day I partake of our Lord' Blood in addition to His Body. Or are ya referring to the earthly pleasures of a pint of Guiness beer me lad?

No, actually I was refering to small doses of mystical experiences like the gift of prophecy or something to that nature... taken in moderation. Stired not shaken.


Justin

Anthony,

With all due respect I suggest two things for consideration:

1. A council, such as the Vatican II Council, need not be ecumenical to be authoritative.

2. One should not look for permission from Rome to do what is right and correct. If we are Byzantines only insofar as we believe that Rome is allowing us to be than we are not Byzantines at all. But if we, as Byzantines, proclaim the theology and liturgy of our Church to the fullest then we are fully Byzantine, fully Orthodox and fully Catholic.

Admin

Dear Esteemed Administrator,

You've put your finger on an issue that has been debated in the Church since the time of St John the Merciful and amongst the major patriarchates of the Church.

That issue is what is meant by "Ecumenical."

The Patriarch of Constantinople was censured for appropriating the title in his name, and the Pope of Alexandria considered himself to be "Ecumenical Archbishop" alongside the "Ecumenical Pontiff" of Rome.

The term has taken on the meaning of "universal" or "world-wide."

But it could mean "universal" only in terms of a Particular Church's own jurisdictional reach or the "world" as it knows it.

Such an understanding exists in the Russian Church where saints are glorified for the "universal" Russian Church meaning everywhere throughout the world where it exists.

The problem occurs when what is "universal" for one world-wide Church (say the Latin Church) is then seen as obligatory for the other world-wide Particular Churches.

At some point, the distinction between "universal ours" and "universal everyone's" breaks down.

I would submit that the Latin Church, historically, has acted in ways that bespeak of its refusal to see what is specific to it as a Particular Church is not specific to the entire Church. For the Latin Church, its own sense of "universality" implied the imposition of Particular Latin patrimony on everyone else, until recently.

Even now, however, there are many aspects of Latin Church life that Rome does NOT differentiate apart from the universal definition of "Catholic." Priestly celibacy is one such matter.

That we are Particular Churches in communion with Rome is something no one would argue about.

The interpretation of what that implies for Eastern Catholics is where the problem is.

Are the later Latin Councils Ecumenical? For the Latin Church, absolutely.

The Latin Church exists throughout the world. Its own legitimate self-understanding as an Ecumenical, world-wide Church is something that the Greek Orthodox, Coptic Orthodox and others would also share as far as their own jurisdictions are concerned.

The Latin Church sees itself as a universal Church for this geographic reason. The fact that other Churches not in union with it (and therefore, not fully the Church) did not participate in those Councils matters not a wit.

I agree with your assessment of the situation.

The historical facts of our history remain and I don't know if we can rewrite them. We can change the terms, if our bishops can pull it off (I won't hold my breath). But we can't rewrite history.

And that history is that our respective Eastern Catholic Churches submitted to the Pope of Rome, nomatter what we say our contemporary relationship to Rome is or should be.

The fact is that we accepted those points of Latin theology that differed from Orthodox - union with Rome would have been impossible otherwise.

And yet, Rome would still see us as Particular Churches with our own liturgical AND theological patrimonies. As long as at the end of the day our faith agrees, whether we have the Filioque in the creed or not.

So if our union with Rome is real, and it is, then for us to say that the 14 councils "of the Latins" has no bearing on us is to suggest that that union, as Rome and our historic Churches defined it when they agreed to it, is imperfect. And that simply cannot be under present conditions.

The Latins may have nothing to teach us in those 14 councils. But that doesn't make them any less ecumenical for us. And why, ultimately? Because Rome tells us they are ecumenical and binding on ALL Catholics. That is, unfortunately, the strait-jacket we are in, like it or not.

And we can't come back with the argument of our Particular patrimonies. Rome says one has nothing to do with the other - and so do our bishops.

A similar issue exists for Oriental Orthodox who reject the later four councils on the grounds they weren't present at them (and indeed their Fathers were excommunicated at Chalcedon) and that there is nothing the other councils can teach them.

Yet, a restoration of unity or "ecumenical gathering" which such a restoration would signify would mean that not only the doctrines contained in any councils are accepted by all, but also that the Councils at which they were affirmed or reaffirmed are acknowledged by all.

In this case, your argument, Administrator, in favour of seeing the Latins' Ecumenical Councils as Local (Latin) Councils would be reversed: the four later councils seen as local Byzantine Councils would be accepted as Ecumenical councils by the Orientals (if they will so accept them).

To accept the validity of a Council and to acknowledge it as Ecumenical need not imply that there is anything in that council that we, as Eastern Catholics, need be troubled about.

Our Eastern Patriarch-Cardinals may serve to elect a Pope of Rome whose administration will have little direct impact on the lives of the Eastern Churches.

But to reject the participation in a conclave would signify a rejection of the fullness of unity, such as would obtain in a rejection of Councils.

And we come to the final argument about the matter of participation in a Council to establish it as ecumenical.

Orthodox Churches have "raised" the decisions of local Councils, councils in which Patriarchs et al. did not participate to the ecumenical level simply by a decision to do so.

So by acknowledging the ecumenicity of the 14 Latin Councils, our Churches did in fact have an input in this way and "raised" them to ecumenical councils within our Particular traditions by so doing.

If Rome itself wanted to relegate the latter 14 Councils to the rank of "Local" then that is its prerogative too. Or the Orthodox Churches could acknowledge some of them, but not necesssarily all.

The "8th" Council, and both sides have a different understanding of what that is, at which St Photios was restored and the Filioque officially rejected by Rome could serve, as Meyendorff pointed out, as an ecumenical point of departure for a reunion council. Again, both sides would have to acknowledge that as an ecumenical council and agree on its meaning for their respective Churches.

So, yes, Vatican II is an Ecumenical Council for our Eastern Catholic Churches because we participated in it and because we acknowledged it and accepted it as such.

Our bishops historically did the same with respect to the other 14 Councils, following Orthodox precedent in this regard.

That decision isn't written in stone, the acknowledgement can be "degraded" but I don't think that will happen. What our bishops did was perform an ecclesial act. It would take something really authoritative to change things, like another Council at which both Rome and Orthodoxy preside as equals.

So, yes, we do acknowledge all 21 Councils as ecumenical and not just because Rome tells us to.

Our Particular Eastern Catholic Churches have themselves acknowledged them as ecumenical.

Like it or not.

Have a great day, you busy person!

Alex

Alex,

Your argument is eloquent but I disagree with both your premise and your conclusions. A council can be authoritative without being ecumenical. You seem to fall into the trap that what the Latin Church considers to be universal is automatically ecumenical. While this is indeed the way the Latins have usually operated, it simply isn�t proper or just.

I also disagree that our particular Eastern Catholic Churches have acknowledged them as ecumenical. Our official catechism, promulgated by our Byzantine Catholic bishops, is pretty clear that we recognize Seven Councils as Ecumenical and that the Roman Church, which we are in communion with but not part of, further recognizes fourteen councils as ecumenical (see David�s earlier post of the relevant excerpts). Pope Paul VI, which I referenced earlier in this thread, also acknowledged that the later councils are in a much different category than the Seven Councils (his chosen phrase was �General Councils in the West�). It is for us to build upon this to show the Latins that the Latin way of doing things does not equate with the normative Catholic way of doing theology. If we do not do this we do a disservice to the Latins, the Orthodox and ourselves.

Admin