www.byzcath.org Forums Faith & Christian Life The Christian East & West Ecumenical Councils: 21 or 7?

I would like to propose a compromise. Although I am not as educated as some of the more "Orthodox leaning" folks, and I am not as Latin as some of the "Catholic First" folks, I hope that I can contribute something to the discussion.

It seems very clear to me from the recent statements coming from Rome that we are supposed to become as Eastern as possible. We should strive for a fully Eastern liturgy, spiritual life, and even theological expression. All of the statements that I have seen from the Vatican say this. This having been noted, what should our response be to the Western "Ecumenical" Councils?

Well, we should acknowledge them as bearing truth. In this sense, we should "accept" them. We "accept" the fact that they are expressions of truth. But NO Council ever expresses the fullness of Truth, only shadows of it. And there is always room later for doctrinal development with regards to the truth.

But having "accepted" them as bearing truth, does this mean that we "apply" them to ourselves, or "implement them." With one reservation, absolutely not. To "apply" the prescriptions of these Western Councils to us would be to abandon our own legitimate Eastern theological expression. These Councils use almost exclusively scholastic Latin concepts, which would make no sense in our Eastern theological framework. Plus, the Magisterium (including the Vatican) has insisted that we recover our Eastern theological heritage. So we can't (by order of the Pope himself) apply the doctrinal rulings of these councils to us. But we also cannot go to the opposite extreme of denouncing these doctrinal rulings as heretical. We must accept that they bear the Western expression of Truth, which really doesn't effect us very much.

The only Western Council which really DOES effect us is Vatican II. Vatican II clearly calls for us to return to our Eastern Patrimony. This is what people like the much maligned Stuart K and Brendan are trying to do. Sometimes we go overboard in our zeal to be Eastern, and uncritically embrace all things Eastern Orthodox - making us appear to reject the See of Peter. But we really don't, as we appreciate being in communion with Rome.

So in summary, we should "accept" the Western Councils as being legitimate expressions of truth, but not apply them to ourselves, as they overwhelmingly do not concern us at all.

What do you think?

Sincerely,
The Sinner Anthony

I like your answer very much Anthony! First I would like to copy what I posted eleswhere! Here it is:

*****************************************
You guys are making no sense!!!!
Are you Catholic?
The Catholic church has 21 ecumenical councils in its history!

Why do you think there are seven?
The first Eight were held in the east?
The first Eight were a part of the undivided church!

Why do the Orthodox accept the first seven only?
Why is your authority better then the undivided authority of the Catholic church with the Pope as its visible head down through the centuries?

What Authority makes the Orthodox right?

Do the Armenians and syrians that come back into unity have to accept 7 or 21 Since they only believe in the first 3?

If they came into Orthodox unity would they have to accept all seven?

All the Councils that the Pope ratifies as Ecumenical are Ecumenical.

What doctrines are you not believing in? What is wrong with these later councils in your mind?

Please respond to these questions!!
****************************************

Now that I have asked these questions(which I would really like someone to respond to) I would like to add some stuff with regards to Anthony's good words.

Unfortunatly much of the East wasn't at the later councils. This did not let there input to be interjected into them. Why is the language used in these councils not the language of the eastern churches? Maybe because our theological traditions were developing independend from eachother. I belive you must accept all 21 because they are Ecumenical councils of the Catholic church. This is just like Nestorians and Armenians and others must accept the first seven in order to be in union with orthodoxy!

But I agree that, although all 21 teach universal truth for the whole church, language and expresion of these truths vary with different theological thoughts and traditions.

Trust me!! I adore the theology of the East.

It is the theology of the east that gives life to the doctrines expressed in these later councils. Eastern theology sheds new light on all the Catholic doctrines I first learned through Latin theology only. Being in thouch with the east and understanding both perspectives is truly like "breathing with both lungs".

I believe some of the best answers to these questions are given by a Melkite Bishop.
Bishop John Elya

Go To: Melkite.org/bishopQA.htm

Comehome

Dear ComeHome,

Thank you for the kind words. I am only a frail sinner, so I do not claim to have the final word on this subject. Ultimately, it will have to be thought through much more carefully when the re-union with the Orthodox occurs (and it will).

I am so glad that you have such deep appreciation for the East. It is great to be able to breathe with both lungs. Are you familiar with the work of Cardinal Yves Congar, who initially coined the concept of "Two lungs, East and West"? He is a personal hero of mine. He was a Latin Cardinal who devoted much of his life to educating Western Catholics about Eastern Christianity. He wrote a remarkable book on the schism entitled "After Nine Hundred Years." You may be able to find it in a local library. It is a wonderful read!

Anthony

Anthony has provided a good analysis regarding the Seven Ecumenical Councils and the later General Councils in the West. I'd just like to add a couple of thinking points:

1. Byzantine Catholics must be firm in both the restoration of and adherence to our authentic Byzantine patrimony. We must do so, however, in a way that does not threaten our Roman Catholic brothers and sisters and which also appears complimentary and not contradictory to their understanding. Because there are over one billion Roman Catholics and less than ten million Byzantine Catholics it will take generations before the average Roman Catholic is aware of our existence, let alone respects the theological approach of Byzantium. To educate both our own people and the Roman Catholics, we should simply state what we know is true and politely avoid in engaging in arguments.

2. Byzantine Catholics must understand that most Roman Catholics will reject our theology unless there is a specific Vatican directive or papal letter that gives us freedom to have an understanding different from theirs. Again, it will take generations for most Roman Catholics (and many of our own people) to understand that we have our own approach to theology and that one can be Catholic without being Roman Catholic.

3. Byzantine Catholics, when engaging in discussions with hyper Roman apologists, should understand that they will not accept our theology as Catholic. I liken this to a Latin insisting that Latin is the theological language that Greeks must speak when gathered around the table. It just doesn't work because our native language is Greek and there is no winning such an argument with someone of a Latin-only mindset. The biggest mistake we Byzantines make is when we fall into the trap of using papal or other official Roman Catholic documentation as proof we have permission to be different. Instead, we should simply present our Byzantine theology (which is perfectly Catholic and Orthodox) as the default Catholic theology and when they object ask them to provide a specific reference requiring us to abandon authentic Byzantine Catholic theology in favor of Roman Catholic theology.

I cannot emphasize enough that we must present Byzantine Catholic theology as simply Catholic theology. When it is presented in terms of how it differs from Roman Catholic theology we have already lost. When comparisons are inevitable, we must make sure that they are made in terms of how Roman theology differs from us. That alone will plant a few seeds.

4. Byzantine Catholics must understand that, despite claims otherwise, the Orthodox do look to us and point to us as proof of the latinization that Rome will demand of them should there be full communion. We must strive to become the model of Orthodoxy within communion with Rome. The Orthodox will never present Orthodoxy in terms of how it differs from Roman Catholicism. Neither should we. We must present Byzantine Catholicism - and Orthodoxy - in a way which is both accurate and attractive to anyone who inquires or sees us, remembering at all times that our primary witness of Jesus Christ is not what we say but how we live.

....or we can stop wounding ourselves for the sake of Rome and return to Holy Orthodoxy (Come Home) where no apologies for being what the Triune God insists that we be are necessary.

Union? Someone needs to remind the Orthodox. There is no interest at the grass- roots level, especially among the Greeks (outside the Phanar,and that is cosmetic.) In the Greek world, Athos counts more than Istanbul. The monks on Athos are unanimously against union with Rome. The "little people," including the parish clergy, will follow Athos, not Istanbul. On matters of church union or re-union, many Byzantine Catholics still think like Latins. Your expectations are romantic and anti-thetical to the facts.

My expectations are neither romantic nor antithetical. Christ gave us the command that we be one. We have an obligation to be one. We will someday become one.

I am not so innocent to believe that either the average Orthodox or Roman Catholic is chomping at the bit for reunion. Most simply don't care about union. The ones who do are rather evenly divided between those who know we must be one and are prayerfully and actively striving for union and those who are adamantly opposed to even working towards union. But I am also very aware that we do not need to convince every single Orthodox and Roman Catholic before we can actively dialogue and pray for the restoration of full communion. The American Revolution for Independence was essentially won with the commitment of only 25% of the general public. A full 25% were loyal to England, with the rest falling into the "don't care" category. This is just one example of how the prayers and hard work of a few can make the Lord's command come true. And from the grassroots it shall come.

Since the last post in here was on 6-14, my post may be a "day late and a dollar short" but will go ahead and chance it anyway.

Moose:
You state that you feel that most RCs don't care about the reunion between the Roman and Eastern Catholic churchs. I don't know if I would go that far. I know that down here most of the RCs that I know really have no knowledge at all about the eastern Catholic Churchs or what they stand for. Sad.

I know for my part, I am trying my best to learn more about you all. I have been coming into these threads hoping to learn even more but have to admit that I do get comfused at times. But, at least I'm trying and learning. And just yesterday (Sunday), prior to Mass, there was a questionaire passed out asking what subjects did we, the laity, wanted to have classes on for better learning, and on that list was the Eastern Catholic perspective, which I checked. My church also has a web site which I will be going to in order to send a request to the priest stating the importance of a better understanding our eastern catholic brothers and sisters.

So the whole point of this is that it's not hopeless. If enough dioceses here in the states can get study classes to include this subject, and if it's presented in the "right light", then maybe, just maybe, a "movement" will get started and who knows what it will come to. Most of all, prayers are needed and mine will be included.

Anthony: I have seen you over in the EWTN history forum talking to Dr. Carroll on exactly this subject. I must admit that your last post there (I believe it was posted on the 18th)was well thought out and presented. I have this funny feeling that Dr. Carroll didn't quite get or see the point you were trying to make, though.

Hope to see all of you in the future thru these threads and can read ya'll post in order to learn.

Yours in Christ
John T

Dear John,

Thank you for the kind words of encouragement. I really enjoy posting on Dr. Carroll's Q&A board over at EWTN because it gives me the opportunity to educate Latin Catholics about us Easterners. Dr. Carroll often misses the points that I am trying to get at, but that's because it can be hard to teach an old Latin new tricks... unless they really want to learn them. But I must give Dr. Carroll a lot of credit for allowing me to continue posting on his board. This demonstrates a real openess on his part, which I truly appreciate.

God bless!
Anthony

Dear Anthony

Nice to hear from you and thank you for responding. About 15 minutes ago, I was once again in EWTN forum, the history thread and read your 6-20-00 post to Dr. Carroll. I must admit I had to laugh a little with your description of "teaching an old dog new tricks" I do believe that is correct (I recently found out he is 68 years old and had had a stroke but recovered nicely) but I also think that at times, with all the reading and responding he has to do, he does "forget" what the point was. Keep doing the good work you are doing over there. I'm sure that the RC's, including myself, will read what you say and learn from it.

I'm at work now, but when I get home I am going to get on my PC and go back to your post in EWTN in order to get a print of it to use as reference. I need everything I can get my hands on to better understand ya'll.

If memory serves me correctly, I do recall seeing you in the ByzTeen thread one day and you stated that you were 22 years of age. If true, I must say that your knowledge of your religion plus the way you express yourself is very impressive. Jesus has really blessed you.

I am going on vacation this Friday and won't be back until July 10th. Hopefully, at that time, you will still be posting away at both web sites and I can read and learn more.

Until then, may be Good Lord always be with you.

Yours in Christ
John T

It looks and sounds as if this post is drifting and coming to an end. I have not been very active lately but leave it to me to revive it once again. In reply to comehome's thoughts on the so-called 21 ecumenical councils of the Roman church I absolutely and stubornly disagree. Comehome sounds like a Latinizer in an Eastern outfit. I understand the loyalty to the Papacy and disloyalty to Orthodoxy. This is the way and the life of a Uniatism. Rome and her Protestant progenies have a long way before entering the communion of Orthodoxy. Since Rome left the Orthodox fold her so-called ecumenical councils from thereon were invalid. Need I remind everyone about the Council Of Jerusalem where St. Peter and Paul and the rest of the Holy Apostles were gathered under the leadership of St. James? Not one of these Apostles considered himself infallible or impeccable. It was when they were gathered together and agreed unanimously on very important issues that they, as the CHURCH, were held to be infallible by the grace of the Holy Spirit. This is what is called the MIND OF CHRIST. This is the One, Holy, Catholic, Apostolic Orthodox Church. When Rome is ready to repent, present a Papal apology, and return to her seat with holy manners and humbleness then she may be awarded the title of Primacy. I don't think most of the Byzantine Catholic hiearchs accept the 21 "Ecumenical Councils". The process of Latinization has been evident more and less within the Byzantine parishes. I know personally many Melikites who have become disenfranchised and returned to Holy Orthodoxy. This has proven to me that there is something seriously wrong with Uniatism. They are more staunch defenders of Orthodoxy than yours truly. They do appreciate where they were once and openly confess the Orthodox Church was always speaking the truth. The only authority that makes the Orthodox what they are is by the grace of the Holy Spirit. The Monophysites(Orthodox) do believe in the Seven Ecumenical Councils even though they were not invited or present. We'll have to wait on the official level for this prouncement. For Cominghome's information the Popes during the Seven Ecumenical Councils did not ratify anything at these Councils. It took them some time to finally accept all Seven because they held their doubts. If there would be an Eighth Ecumenical Council then at that time Rome would be acknowledged as being Orthodox. Until then, she is not Orthodox anymore than the Byzantines. The easy solution to this problem is for Rome to release the Byzantine Catholics and Churches to the Orthodox Church. I know many will not like what I stated but oh well. Any thoughts?

While there is much in Robert's post that I disagree with, he does make a few excellent points and raise some good questions.

Byzantine Catholics do recognize and teach that there are only Seven Ecumenical Councils ('comehome' needs only to check the official Byzantine Catholic catechisms to confirm this). The later Councils are local or General Councils in the West. This doesn't mean that are invalid, just that they are not fully ecumenical since they did not include the entire Church. One example of an equivalent "General Council in the East" would be the 1157 Council of Constantinople where the Byzantine theology on the Eucharist was (more-or-less) codified. Rome's attitude towards the Eastern Churches has shifted considerably in recent generations and there has already been evidence of a lowering of the status the more recent councils in the West. Some of the theologians in Rome have raised the idea of respecting that the Orthodox might accept the later councils as valid councils but not ecumenical councils and that they should be allowed to do so. Orthodoxy would have no problem with accepting the right of local Churches (i.e., any of the patriarchates) to have local councils. The issue Orthodoxy would have would be with some of the teachings of these councils.

>>The Monophysites (Orthodox) do believe in the Seven Ecumenical Councils even though they were not invited or present.<<

The Pre-Calcedonian Oriental Churches (as we now call them) only officially accept the first Four Ecumenical Councils. It is actually a bit humorous to look through some of their service books and see the anathamas against those who refuse to accept the "teachings of all Four Ecumenical Councils". There has been a successful dialogue with Rome (and a lesser one with Constantinople) and most of the problem has been attributed to language issues, and not major theological differences.

>>If there would be an Eighth Ecumenical Council then at that time Rome would be acknowledged as being Orthodox. Until then, she is not Orthodox anymore than the Byzantines. The easy solution to this problem is for Rome to release the Byzantine Catholics and Churches to the Orthodox Church.<<

While Robert and I will agree to disagree that his jurisdiction is somehow more Orthodox than are the Byzantine Catholic jurisdictions, he again raises some good questions. Both sides have agreed that Rome's attempt at "Uniatism" has failed and is clearly an unacceptable model towards establishing full communion between Churches. But Byzantine Catholics do exist and have a right to exist. What should the next concrete steps in the dialogue be?

1. What vehicle exists among the Orthodox Churches to call an ecumenical council? Historically, this authority was granted to the Byzantine Emperor. After East and West separated from one another, the pope assumed the right to call an ecumenical council. The patriarch of Constantinople has claimed this right for the East, but the other Orthodox Churches have not recognized this. It would seem that one would have to have agreement from each and every canonical Orthodox jurisdictions (the ones in communion with the ancient patriarchates) before such a council could be called. If a General Council in the East can not be called, how could the various Orthodox Churches agree to participate in an Ecumenical Council?

2. Could Rome release the Byzantine Catholic Churches to be governed by the Orthodox Churches? This would be an ideal solution, but what requirements would come with it? The key issue would be the authority of Peter. We know that some sort of redefinition of the role of Peter is in the works. Would Orthodoxy be content with leaving this issue open for the Byzantine Catholics or would she require a full rejection of not only the role of Peter but all things Roman Catholic? The first is workable, but the second would not be possible (although I think only the most fundamental Orthodox would even consider it). Such a move has always been considered as one of the first fruits of re-establishing full communion, but never as a pre-condition to dialogue.

Glory to Jesus Christ!

Time was I would have agreed with Comehome that Catholics had to accept 21 ecumenical councils, but this isn�t so. Apparently Catholicism really does hold only the first seven are ecumenical � not a problem from Catholicism�s POV since, as my friend the Russian Catholic priest Fr Serge Keleher pointed out to me, the list of 21 actually has no official standing in Catholicism. So Nos. 8-21 are �general� councils of the Latin Church.

Robert, *when* exactly did Rome �leave the Orthodox fold�? 1054 is a red herring as Brother Maximos rightly wrote elsewhere. One side didn�t fall away and lose grace � there was a gradual estrangement in the Middle Ages. The moving of St Nicholas� body to Bari, Italy is commemorated in the Russian Orthodox Church and not the Greek because it happened after 1054 � the Russians were still in communion with Rome while the Greeks weren�t.

Catholics don�t believe in papal impeccability either.

You�re right that the Popes didn�t call or attend the first ecumenical councils.

Catholicism won�t �hand over� the Eastern Catholics to the Orthodox as a precondition to dialogue because dogmatically it can�t. It teaches that once one is in communion with the see of Peter, one can�t deliberately break that communion without imperiling one�s soul. Rome won�t do this to the present-day Eastern Catholics. (Obviously this doesn�t apply to born Orthodox.)

The only real reason for the Schism is the built-in bias for the Roman Church in the present Catholic system, putting the Eastern Churches at a disadvantage. Why is communion with one church, the Roman, necessary to be fully in the Church? The Orthodox have a point here.

http://oldworldrus.com

Sorry Guys!

Those who say there are only 7 ecumenical councils are also the people that question whether Peter and his sucsessors are the unifing head of the church on earth.

God established the Papacy to keep the church unified. The 21 ecumenical councils reconized by the Popes are truly Ecumenical! I agree that they deal more with western issues and western theology but it is still Catholic Theology and must be followed by all Catholics and those wishing to follow the truth.

Go to a good Catholic bookstore and get a good book on the Papacy. It is clear from scripture and the fathers that Christ built His church on the Rock of the Papacy and that the gates of hell will not prevail!

I do understand some flexibility in understanding of Ecumenical councils and how the Eastern Rites view the later ones. The later coucils concern more the west but what these councils taught about faith and morals must be belived by ALL.

In Christ
Comehome

>>>God established the Papacy to keep the church unified.<<<

Great job he's done to date, what?

I was reviewing our liturgical calendar. I found the Sunday of the First Ecumenical Council. I found the Sunday of the First Six Ecumenical Councils. I found the Sunday of the Seventh Ecumenical Council. I couldn't find the Sunday where we celebrate Lyons, Basle, Constance, Florence, Trent, etc... Could someone please help me? If you go by what we celebrate, we only have seven ecumenical councils. Father doesn't help much either--he only preaches about the first seven councils. Our bishop has never been to our parish and he lives 1,000 miles away so I've never seen him to be able to ask. I only know what we celebrate in the liturgy and what Father teaches. I guess I'm just a dumb moron.