www.byzcath.org Forums Faith & Christian Life The Christian East & West Trent and the East

How do we Easterners reconcile Trent's Canon on Sacraments with our view that Sacraments are more fluid?

Trent: CANON I.-If any one saith, that the sacraments of the New Law were not all instituted by Jesus Christ, our Lord; or, that they are more, or less, than seven, to wit, Baptism, Confirmation, the Eucharist, Penance, Extreme Unction, Order, and Matrimony; or even that any one of these seven is not truly and properly a sacrament; let him be anathema. "

Do we simply not consider Trent binding (easy enough) and simply a Western synod, or something else?

Trent is a General Council of the Western Church. We have an obligation in charity to read it as favorably as possible, taking into account the context of that council, but we have no further obligation towards it (attempts to make the Eastern Catholic Churches fit the Tridentine strait-jacket have invariably been disastrous).
Also, if one reads more of the decrees of Trent, one finds that the Fathers of that Council threw around Anathemas with rather more enthusiasm than sober reflection might have indicated. Not that they alone are guilty of this and nobody else ever did it - but endorsing it is a poor idea.

Incognitus

Michael_Thoma

What sacraments would we Eastern Catholics want to add or subtract from the list that the council of Trent taught? As a Byzantine Catholic, I do not find this canon of Trent to be at odds with my Byzantine faith, as I do with some other teachings/tradition of the Latin Church. I am not familiar with a controversy between East and West over the number of Sacraments. Would you please explain this controversy in more detail for me. Thanks

Jesse Venner

My specific disagreement has to do with this line:
CANON I.-If any one saith, that the sacraments of the New Law were not all instituted by Jesus Christ, our Lord; or, that they are more, or less, than seven, to wit, Baptism, Confirmation, the Eucharist, Penance, Extreme Unction, Order, and Matrimony; or even that any one of these seven is not truly and properly a sacrament; let him be anathema."

We don't normally limit our Sacraments to seven - I mean the blessing of the house, ordination to subdeaconate, sacrament of funeral, etc. are all called sacraments.

At least for those of us of the Byzantine persuasion, many would argue that the Great Blessing of Waters (done for Holy Theophany) belongs on a a good list of Sacraments.

But I'm curious. Why would anyone wish to apply Trent to the East?

Incognitus

Within the wording of the council itself is the description "ecumenical". In every article I have ever seen about Trent, it is always referred to as an ecumenical council.

Trent came up in a conversation recently on the board Irish Melkite visited that alerted me to this one. The topic was original sin and the statement was made that "If a Catholic denies inherited guilt they contradict Trent and would be a material heretic." That was made by someone who I consider to be a very knowledgable and traditional Catholic. I can't see how he could possibly be wrong given the statement on original sin is one of the sixteen dogmatic decrees of the council, and therefore binding on all Catholics. I'm fairly certain the statement on the sacraments is also among the dogmatic decrees, and therefore has the same status.

Andrew

I can easily think of a number of gatherings which called themselves ecumenical councils. The mere assertion does not create the fact.

Let us show due reverence and respect for others, by leaving Trent to the Tridentines, with our very best wishes.

Incognitus

Dogmatic decrees are an article of faith and cannot be selectively discarded, though one could simply not give them any attention. It's beside the point what a council is called, dogmatic decrees are binding.

Andrew

Andrew,

I think the point that's attempting to be made here is that local decrees are locally binding (i.e., Latin decrees are "Latinly binding," so to speak). Local councils carry local force (unless later accepted ecumenically). In other words, there's no disagreement here that decrees of councils ought to be viewed with appropriate obedience, so it won't do to attack the notion that they shouldn't be viewed with obedience (since I don't think anyone's saying that here); rather, the disagreement appears to be over the extension of those decrees. At least, I believe this was the point Incognitus was trying to make (correct me if I'm wrong).

Have you ever read any of Francis Dvornik's work, by the way? If not, try this one: Which Councils are Ecumenical? [orthodoxchristianity.net] In that article, Dvornik makes clear that the West did not decisively begin claiming that its own Western councils were "ecumenical" until roughly some time in the late 16th century, and that was done in response to an urgent need to put a stop to the Protestant Reformation. I think, given those historical points, Incognitus' remark to the effect that the council's calling itself "ecumenical" means very little carries a bit more force.

God bless,
Jason

Jason, in an Orthodox context I would agree with you. The difference is that in Catholicism doctrine is not validated by its reception in to the consciousness of the church, it's validated by the teaching office of the church. The dogmatic decrees of Trent have that stamp of approval, however you want to define the nature of the council. Therefore one could not repudiate the dogmatic decrees of the council and still call oneself Catholic.

Practically speaking it just makes sense. You can't have a dogma one hand that says there are only seven sacraments, and another that says there are an undefined number. Just as you can't have two alternate realities about the nature of the Trinity and still have one communion of faith.

Andrew

(oh, I'll read the article tomorrow. Thanks)

Andrew,

Yeah, I understand what you mean here. However, I think the Eastern Catholic response to your point might be one or more (or maybe all) of the following: (1) in Western Catholicism doctrine is validated by the teaching office of the Church, whereas in Eastern Catholicism it's validated by reception into the consciousness of the Church (in other words, even that Western understanding is a local one and not binding on the East); (2) given the entirely Western context of the council, the "stamp of approval" itself was local in force -- because the East was not involved, it was not a teaching that truly affected the whole Church, and so while it may have received a stamp of approval from the "Patriarch of the West," that stamp itself is likewise a stamp in the West; (3) (this point is related, of course, to (1)) Eastern Catholics have been encouraged to return to their traditions, and part of that tradition is that reception by the Church is necessary for ecumenical validity, and also that papal primacy is not divorced from collegiality with the other Patriarchates, the latter condition not being fulfilled at Trent.

However, I'll be the first to admit that these are difficult and perhaps questionable replies to make. They're not necessarily the ones I'd make, but that's only because I'm not sure right now. In any case, someone like Archbishop Elias Zoghby (if you don't know who he is, let me know and I'll provide some info) would probably endorse them.

Have you been reading my recent posts? I agree with you that that's an extremely difficult issue. If you look for some of the things I've posted on lately regarding the Eastern vs. Western understandings of the Trinity (maybe see the thread in this forum on the Divine Essence/Energies), you'll see that I am certainly feeling the brunt of that problem right now.

Thanks, and God bless,
Jason

I would say that canon does not really apply to the Byzantines. There is a different form of theology in the east that does not limit sacraments in the same way. The canon was written specifically in mind of the western theology.

Papal infallibility simply would not make sense, and frankly be of no use, if the scenario you described were true.

Anyhow, dogma cannot be something that stops at the canonical borders of a church.

Andrew

Andrew,

I don't know if that follows. It could continue to make sense and be of use in a Western context.

Furthermore, there are some Eastern Catholics (Archbishop Zoghby included, as far as I know) who respond to the dogma of papal infallibility in exactly the same way I responded to Trent. That dogma itself ought to be observed with obedience by the Western churches because it has been promulgated there, but it carries no ecumenical force with the Eastern churches. Certainly Eastern Catholics are in communion with the Pope with the requisite "reverence," and certainly they will listen to his decrees, but the Western dogmas have not necessarily received the necessary ecumenical stamp in the East, and so are binding for the Latins but not for the Easterns. At least that's the way that some see it.

Ecumenical dogma can't, sure. But the view that's being presented here is something like that the Eastern Catholics do not view the Western pronouncements as dogma, but as Westernly-binding theologoumena. They are binding locally for the Latins, but not binding for the East because they are not dogma in the East. This is equivalent to what happened in the early Church, of course, when local councils in Spain added the filioque to their creeds and so recited it in that version, even though that "dogma" was not ecumenically received. It carried only local force.

God bless,
Jason

Jason, my point is that the idea that doctrine is ratified by its entrance in to the consciousness of the church is diametrically opposed to the belief that it is ratified by the teaching office of the church (though of course they should be in concert). To say that one part of the church can have a doctrine of Papal infallibility and not can�t is just absurd. It would mean the two bodies are living in alternate realities. Communion is shared faith, and that ultimately would mean one or the other is wrong.

In this case it�s all rather beside the point. Vatican I from a Catholic perspective is an �Ecumenical� Council.

Regarding Trent, I would say it is still binding on all Catholics East and West and cannot be likened to a local synod given the nature of the dogmatic decrees it contains and how Catholic doctrine is given its authority.

Just consider this at the practical level. Dogmatic decrees are essentially the enunciation of immutable truths, they are not just an opinion or a memo about what may or not be true. When you commune at a Roman Catholic Church, you are accepting these truths as real. Communion as I said is a bond of shared faith (among other things). Could one then drive down the street and commune at a church where these truths are no longer true, defined completely differently or are in doubt?

Of course not.

Andrew